Philosophy Exam 1: Taylor's Cosmological Arguement

Richard Taylor’s Cosmological Argument

1. The Principle of Sufficient Reason PSR; for anything which exists, there is some explanation (whether known or unknown) for its existence, “some reason why it should exist rather than not”

2. The universe (or the world) exists.

3. Therefore, there’s some explanation (whether unknown or known) for the existence of the universe, “some reason why it should exist rather than not”

4. Three possibilities of what the explanation could be

   1. A universe dependent on itself for the reason of its existence (a necessary universe)

   2. A universe dependent on the creative actions of a powerful but contingent being (meaning it relies on something else)

   3. A universe dependent on the creative actions of a necessary being.

5. Option a) is implausible since Taylor believes the universe is not necessary. Using the PSR, the universe has no sufficient reasoning to assume it’s always been around.

6. Option b) is incomplete since we would have to suppose the contingent being infinitely relies on other contingent beings and there is no sufficient reasoning to suppose this.

7. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence appeals to the creative actions of a necessary being.

8. Therefore, a necessary being exists that created the universe

Richard Taylor’s example for the Cosmological Argument

Taylor uses a ball found in the woods as his example for the PSR. You would ask yourself why there is a ball in the woods instead of supposing that is has always existed—you would think its existence has to be explained by something else (contingent). If there were to be no forest, we would still ask the same question about how it got there (contingency) rather than why does it not exist (necessary).

What is Contingency?

Something is contingent if:

it might or might not exist

it is possible for it to not exist (or have existed)

when it is existing, it is dependent on something else for its existence

What is Necessity?

Necessity is if:

it must exist

it is not possible for it to not exist (Say a person is in a room with 4 objects. Suppose humans didn’t exist—there’d still be 4 objects in the room)

Things which exist necessarily depend only upon themselves for their existence

What is something that is contingently true?

A statement is contingently true if it may have been false. For example, when it is daytime and you say “it’s day.” It is contingently true, BUT it could be false if it were to be nighttime and you were to say the same thing.

What is something that is necessarily true?

A statement that is not possible to be false. 2+2=4

What is a premises?

Assumptions we believe are true when making an arguement

What is a conclusion?

What follows a premises by logicE

Example of a premises

You’re not a student at duke, therefore, you’re a student at Wake

You’re a student at Wake, therefore, you’re not a student at Duke

2 premises, 1 conclusion (you go to Wake and not Duke)

What does Taylor’s argument not show?

1) Does not specify there is only one necessary being.

2) Does not specify it’s a theistic being (such as God)

What does Taylor’s argument show?

At least one NB exists.

At least one NB directly or indirectly created the universe

At least one NB is very powerful and knowledgeable (either individually or jointly; think about if we as humans are powerful enough to create a universe. makes sense for a larger being to have done so)

The universe is not all there is.

What is Ockham’s Razor?

When other things are being compared equally, one should always accept the simpler theory and postulate the fewest number of things needed in order to explain something

Why is Ockham’s Razor important to Taylor’s argument?

If we use Ockham’s Razor alongside Taylor’s, it is simplest to suppose that there is only one necessary being (instead of multiple or the infinite contingent problem)

Theism (Monotheism)

One God Exists who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Created the universe and is still actively involved in the universe.

Examples of monotheism

Christianity, Islam, Judaism

What is omnipotence?

All-powerful

OR

Power only over contingent beings—has the power to do anything that is POSSIBLE to do

E.g. can’t make a stone too heavy for God to lift; simply is not possible

What is omniscience?

All-knowing

OR

Knows everything that is possible to know

E.g. does not know a truly free decision you will make tomorrow until you actually make it (free will implies you have the option to choose right or wrong or different outcomes)

What is omnibenevolence?

All-good (loving)

Deism

God made the universe and is not involved after making it

Atheism

The rejection of all divine beings (supernatural)

Taylor’s argument for Atheism

It’s wrong if Taylor’s argument is good; atheism rejected

How do we evaluate arguments?

1) Premises (is it true?)

2) Is the argument logical?

Is Taylor’s Premise 1 true/logical?

What about Premise 2?

Mid. Has not been proven true or false.

Logical.

What is Rowe’s objection to Taylor’s argument?

The PSR is an assumption but it might or might not be false. Rowe’s objection is ALSO an assumption (doesn’t use evidence to disprove it).

Taylor’s response to Rowe’s objection

There has been nothing done to prove the PSR assumption is false; reasonable to believe until proven false

Our response to Rowe’s objection to Taylor’s argument

Ockham’s Razor; keep the assumption it’s true we’re humans because it’s crazier to believe otherwise

Does not reject other explanations only says it’s implausible to think there is no being we come from

Premise 4: Three possibilities for what the explanation could be (Taylor’s argument)

Could be other NBs like “The Force” from Star Wars.

Could be plausible as long as “The Force” is responsible for our creation without it being created itself

Premise 5: Option a) is implausible

The world has an age and the Big Bang, so it seems highly implausible for it to be necessary.

Premise 6: Option b) the universe was created by a powerful but contingent being is incomplete

Would make God a contingent being which wouldn’t explain how that contingent being came into existence (a neverending loop of contingency)

Why is the CB infinite loop objected by Rowe?

The series of CBs lacks an explanation. The entire chain of CBs would have to be explained by a necessary being. For the CB infinity to make sense, there would need to be an explanation that does 2 things

A. Explain the existence of each CB in the series

B. Explain why there are any CBs rather than none

In order to satisfy B, we must appeal to a necessary being.

What are some other problems with infinite CB chain?

a) Ockham’s Razor —> not very simplistic to think of an entire CB chain

b) Mathematically —> you will never reach infinity when counting so if the CBs were infinite, we never would have gotten the universe