Combining Texts

All the ideas for 'fragments/reports', 'Commentary on 'Physics'' and 'Anselm's Argument'

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these texts


4 ideas

7. Existence / A. Nature of Existence / 3. Being / e. Being and nothing
Prime matter is halfway between non-existence and existence [Averroes]
     Full Idea: Prime matter falls halfway, as it were, between complete non-existence and actual existence.
     From: Averroes (Ibn Rushd) (Commentary on 'Physics' [1190], I.70), quoted by Robert Pasnau - Metaphysical Themes 1274-1671 03.1
26. Natural Theory / A. Speculations on Nature / 5. Infinite in Nature
Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless [Archelaus, by Diog. Laertius]
     Full Idea: Archelaus was the first person to say that the universe is boundless.
     From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Diogenes Laertius - Lives of Eminent Philosophers 02.Ar.3
27. Natural Reality / G. Biology / 3. Evolution
Archelaus said life began in a primeval slime [Archelaus, by Schofield]
     Full Idea: Archelaus wrote that life on Earth began in a primeval slime.
     From: report of Archelaus (fragments/reports [c.450 BCE]) by Malcolm Schofield - Archelaus
     A reaction: This sounds like a fairly clearcut assertion of the production of life by evolution. Darwin's contribution was to propose the mechanism for achieving it. We should honour the name of Archelaus for this idea.
28. God / B. Proving God / 2. Proofs of Reason / a. Ontological Proof
God's existence is either necessary or impossible, and no one has shown that the concept of God is contradictory [Malcolm]
     Full Idea: God's existence is either impossible or necessary. It can be the former only if the concept of such a being is self-contradictory or in some way logically absurd. Assuming that this is not so, it follows that He necessarily exists.
     From: Norman Malcolm (Anselm's Argument [1959], §2)
     A reaction: The concept of God suggests paradoxes of omniscience, omnipotence and free will, so self-contradiction seems possible. How should we respond if the argument suggests God is necessary, but evidence suggests God is highly unlikely?