Cosmological argument (Richard Taylor)

Question 1

Cause from of the Cosmological argument

Answer 1

Everything that exists has a cause.
The chain of causes cannot regress infinitely.
Therefore, there must be a first cause, often identified as God.

Question 2

Critiques of causal form: Conclusion inconsistent with premise; inadequate support for premise; inadequacy of conclusion for proving existence of God

Answer 2

Conclusion Inconsistent with Premises:
The argument assumes that everything must have a cause but concludes with a “first cause” that itself is uncaused, creating a contradiction.

Inadequate Support for the Premises:
    The premise that "everything must have a cause" may not hold universally, especially in light of modern scientific theories like quantum mechanics, where events can occur without discernible causes.

Inadequacy of the Conclusion:
    Even if a first cause is established, the conclusion does not necessarily prove the existence of a specific deity (e.g., the God of classical theism) with attributes like omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence.

Question 3

Reasons for “explanation” vs. “causal” forms of argument

Answer 3

Critiques of the Causal Form (as reasons for favoring the explanatory approach):

Contradictory Assumptions:
    The causal form asserts that everything must have a cause but concludes with an uncaused "first cause," leading to internal inconsistency.
    The explanatory form avoids this contradiction by asking why the universe exists at all, without necessarily requiring a causal chain.

Infinite Regression Problem:
    The causal argument relies on rejecting infinite regress but fails to justify why this rejection is necessary or why the chain must terminate in a specific "first cause."
    The explanatory form sidesteps the infinite regression debate by focusing on why the entire sequence of causes exists, rather than simply terminating the chain.

Lack of Connection to God:
    The causal form does not necessarily lead to the existence of a deity with attributes like omnipotence or omniscience.
    The explanatory form allows for a broader exploration of why the universe exists, potentially leading to a more robust conception of a necessary being or ultimate reality.

Advantages of the Explanatory Form:

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR):
    The explanatory form relies on the PSR, which states that everything must have a reason or explanation for its existence.
    This principle provides a foundation for questioning the existence of the universe as a whole, rather than focusing on individual causes.

Broader Scope:
    The explanatory form considers the totality of existence, not just individual components or causal sequences, offering a more holistic approach to understanding the universe.

Avoidance of Contradictions:
    By focusing on explanation rather than causation, this approach avoids the pitfalls of positing an uncaused cause, making it logically more consistent.

Philosophical Depth:
    The explanatory form engages with deeper metaphysical questions, such as why there is something rather than nothing, rather than merely tracing a sequence of events or causes.

Question 4

Taylor’s form of cosmological argument

Answer 4

1.The universe exists as a contingent reality.
2.A contingent reality requires an explanation for its existence.
3.The explanation cannot be contingent itself, as this would lead to an infinite regress.
4.Therefore, the universe’s existence must be explained by a necessary being, which Taylor identifies as God.

Question 5

Critique: Invalid argument—compositionality fallacy; logical analogy to demonstrate invalidity

Answer 5

1.Taylor argues that since every contingent entity within the universe requires an explanation, the universe as a whole must also require an explanation.
2.Critics contend this inference is invalid because the relationship between the parts and the whole is not necessarily analogous.

Brick Wall Analogy:

Premise: Each brick in the wall is small.

Fallacy: Therefore, the wall itself is small.

The error: Properties of the individual components (size of bricks) do not necessarily apply to the composite whole (size of the wall).

Application: Just because each part of the universe requires an explanation, it does not follow that the universe as a whole requires one.

Question 6

Modified form of cosmological argument

Answer 6

1.The universe consists of contingent entities.
2.A contingent entity’s existence requires an explanation beyond itself.
3.The universe, being a collection of contingent entities, cannot explain itself.
4.The explanation for the existence of the universe must lie in a necessary being, which exists by the necessity of its own nature and provides the ultimate reason for the universe.

Question 7

Principle of Sufficient Reason: 2 parts of principle

Answer 7

Part 1: Contingent entities must have an external explanation for their existence.
Part 2: Necessary entities exist by the necessity of their own nature and do not require an external cause.

Question 8

Reasons for PSR (with critique of those reasons)

Answer 8

Intuitive Appeal(doesn’t work well for the universe)

Empirical Support(doesn’t prove anything)

metaphysical necessity( begs the question)

practical utility(doesn’t guarantee)

Avoidance of brute facts(brute facts about the universe may be unavoidable)

Question 9

Critique of PSR

Answer 9

quantum mechanics-shows things occur without explanation

Fallacy of composition-The PSR assumes that if individual components of a system have explanations, the system as a whole must also have one.

Circular Reasoning-The PSR assumes that everything, including the PSR itself, must have an explanation. This requirement is circular and lacks independent justification.