Add this site to your Home Screen by opening it in Safari, tapping and selecting "Add to home screen"

Our panel of 88 professional philosophers has responded to

Question of the day

I could be wrong, but I believe that few philosophers today would claim that causation (per se) can be eliminated in an adequate description and explanation of the world. Indeed, it would be hard to understand our communicating right now (my intentionally responding to you, using computational mechanisms) without making use of cause-effect relations. There are abundant philosophical treatments of causation ranging from those that appeal to laws of nature, counterfactuals, Humean regularities.... I myself favor the idea that causation is best not understood as fundamentally involving laws of nature; I suggest that what we think of as laws of nature are abstractions that rest on substances (things / particles) that have primitive or basic causal powers and liabilities, but this (like so many things in philosophy) is controversial.

There are still defenders of the cosmological argument for theism. You might look at what I think is the excellent entry on the cosmological argument in the free online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Bruce Reichenbach or the work of Tim O'Connor. The Stanford entry has an excellent bibliography.