Second Midterm Flashcards
Two steps of modern cosmological arguments
- Argue for existence of necessary/self-existent being
- Identification stage
First and last step of Reichenbach’s cosmological argument
- A contingent being exists
- A necessary being exists
Is cosmological argument full or partial
Full
Problem w/ premise cosmological “What explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent being
“Being” - if modify to “thing” (law/principle), weaker conclusion necessary thing exists which might not be a being
Commentary on “A contingent being exists”
Granted there are beings, denying premise 1 would affirm the conclusion
Commentary on “The cause of its existence is something other than the contingent being itself”
Rules out self-causing beings, seems secure, would have to explanatorily precede itself
Alternatives to “contingent beings alone cannot cause the existence of another contingent being”
chains terminating in contingent being (that is brute)
Chains that are circular (not plausible)
Chains that are infinite
Hume/Edwards Priniciple
Sufficiently explaining each/every part of something sufficiently explains existence of the whole
Arguments against Hume/Edwards Principle
- Reducing infinite causation to circular causation (sees illegitimate to explain collection of eggs w/ collection or chickens); whole infinite series still requires explanation
- Cannonball’s causeless flight
Two versions of cannonball’s causeless flight
- Cannonball at rest at t0, t1l; trajectory every time in between. Can explain each stage of trajectory even if cannonball not shot
- Canon ball does not exist at t0, but exists at every moment after; existence of cannon ball popping into existence sufficiently explained
One possible way to justify premise “This contingent being has a cause of its existence”
PSR
Principle of Sufficient Reason
For everything that exists, there is a sufficient reason for its existence; denies brute facts; universe is intelligible/things have explanations
Problem with PSR
Modal collapse
Modal collapse argument
If the PSR is true, then there are no contingent facts (necessitarianism)
How could we save Premise 2 from modal collapse
weaker intelligibility principle that doesn’t have contrastive explanation for everything but still sufficient to explain what we witness
More on Buridan’s ass
With a more demanding PSR, donkey could not go anywhere
But still ruling out many other possibilities, so intelligibility still preserved
Why is Buridan’s ass advantageous to cosmological argument 1
Found explanatory principle that doesn’t require fully contastive explanation
Brute Facrt view
Explanation for existence of universe of contingent beings terminates in a brute fact; or there is infinite chain of contingent beings, and that chains’ existence is brute fact
Why might theist want to rule out necessarianism?
Maybe free will, theological determinism; maybe limiting if God forced to create universe
What is response to partial intelligibility/brute fact view
Maybe not rational in maintaining trust in cognitive facilities and in rejecting skepticism
What is a reason to doubt a skeptical universe and say common sense view more antecedent probability
If thought there was a necessary ordering toward valuehat
What is the common sense view
The universe you take yourself to inhabit (vs. skeptical universe)
Examples of skeptical universes
5 minute old universe
Laws of physics normal, then shift radically
Boltzmann Brains - particles accidentally come together, really just popped into existence
Sprase consciousness
Why would brute fact lead to skeptical universes
If skeptical universes all possible, then no reason there’s ovne over the other; common sense universe being simpler would not carry weight