Cosmological_Contingency Argument

My own take on the argument

👍 (2)

First, lets define a few things

Necessary Existence: True in all possible worlds. If something is necessary, there is no possible scenario in which it could fail to exist.

Contingent Existence: True in some possible worlds but false in others or an entity that relies on external factors to bring it into existence and sustain it.

PSR: Principle Of Sufficient Reason. The PSR demands that all facts and states of affairs, whether contingent or necessary, have a sufficient reason for their existence or their specific attributes. It is a cornerstone of metaphysics

Brute Fact, A brute fact would be a state of affairs that just is, with no cause or explanation of its existence or nature.

HEP, The HEP posits that to identify the immediate efficient explanation of each thing in a collection is to necessarily to explain the collection as a whole.

B Theory Of Time,According to the B-theory, time is understood as a four-dimensional “block,” where past, present, and future events all coexist simultaneously in a single, unified structure. In this view, time is not something that “flows” or “passes”, instead, it is a dimension similar to space, and all points in time are equally real.

Secondly, The existence of God does not result from the cosmological argument. What results from the argument is a truth (i.e., a statement about God’s existence). Theistic arguments are not a ground for God’s existence. With that said,

P1: A contingent being exists. This contingent being is caused either by itself, or by another. If it were caused by itself, it would have to precede itself in existence, which is impossible.

-# Scientifically speaking, all things are contingent in the set totality of the universe. this is because as the second law of thermodynamics states, that in an isolated system, processes tend to proceed from order to disorder a clear indication that change is intrinsic to natural processes. And in the quantum realm even what seems like “empty” space is teeming with energy fluctuations at the quantum level. Also, According to process philosophy, every entity is defined by its ongoing process of change and nothing cannot be changing (A necessary existence is seen to be still relational under this framework however not contingent)

P2: Therefore, this contingent being is caused by another, i.e depends on something else for its existence.

-# Disjunction (A v B, ~B, —> A)

P3: That which causes (provides the sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either another contingent being, or a noncontingent (necessary) being. If contingent, then this contingent cause must itself be caused by another, and so on to infinity.

-# Ex¹, Ex², Ex³… P(x¹) —> P(x²) —> P(x³)…

P4: Therefore, that which causes (provides sufficient reason for) the existence of any contingent being must be either an infinite series of contingent beings, or a necessary being. An infinite series of contingent beings is incapable of yielding a sufficient reason for the existence of any being.

-# There is no terminus and therefore does not fulfill PSR.

C: Therefore, a necessary being exists

This existence is personal, as it must have volition to act in such a way that it caused in such a time rather than any other. (Also PSR)

This existence must be eternal, as if it is necessary. Then there is no time or condition where it can fail to exist. Therefore a necessary existence MUST be present throughout time without beginning or end.

This necessary existence must be the Most Powerful, if not omnipotent due to it’s ability to actualize potential equivalent to everything within the universe (refer to P1 reasoning)

-# Something contingent is temporal so it must begin to exist, i.e get actualized.

This necessary existence must be the Most Knowing, if not omniscient. As without complete knowledge, the necessary existence would lack the ability to account for why and how contingent things exist as they do. Omniscience/All Knowledge ensures that the necessary existence has perfect explanatory power, satisfying the PSR.

This necessary existence must be one. For if there were two or more necessary existences, each would have to possess some feature that distinguishes them. These distinguishing features would either depend on something outside of the beings themselves (making them contingent) or Be arbitrary, undermining their necessity. And if they have no conflicting properties, then they would be effectively one. And by Ockham’s Razor, we should not multiply entities beyond necessity. A single necessary existence provides a more parsimonious explanation for reality than multiple ones.

This necessary existence must be real, or concrete. As something abstract or non concrete is causally inert and therefore does not relate to a source of causation as is being argued

Addressing objection of B Theory Of Time, actual infinities don’t exist, then the block universe must have a “boundary” or starting point, a finite past. This would suggest a beginning to the chain of existence. If there must be a starting point due to the impossibility of actual infinities, this initial point cannot itself be contingent. A contingent point would rely on a prior cause or explanation, perpetuating the regress. Instead, the starting point must be a necessary existence, for if this starting point were contingent, it would depend on preceding causes or explanations. However, such dependency would reintroduce the need for an antecedent cause which would lead to an infinite regress which is now an absurdity unaccounted for.

Also, even within a static framework like B-Theory, causality and existence need explanation. A block universe does not “flow,” but its very structure demands an ontological grounding. If the entire spacetime block is finite and begins at a certain boundary, then its existence cannot be a mere brute fact without explanation. Therefore it must be an expression of a necessary existence.

Addressing the objecting of a necessary infinite causal contingent chain, we are not dealing with a historic-sequential series of causes that finds sufficient reason for its existence in an infinity of past time. Even if the series were of historic nature, it would be a contingent series; so to label it would not involve a fallacy of composition because it is demonstrable that if every part can cease to exist, and does so, the whole also will cease to exist. Thus, such a series must itself have a cause

Addressing The Objection Of The HEP, the HEP posits that to identify the immediate efficient explanation of each thing in a collection is to necessarily to explain the collection as a whole. However this fails to account for any sense of PSR even weak PSR demanding grounding. Seeing a top floor of a tall building (no matter how many floors there are) signifies there is a ground floor holding the rest of it up, because each floor lacks the ability to hold itself up. That’s what’s being said about existence X as a contingent thing doesnt exist inherently, it has to be brought into being by Y. But Y also doesnt exist inherently, it had to be brought into being by Z, but Z … and so on. An infinite causal chain will only explain “derived existences”, not why anything exists at all in the first place, something has to ground it.

Addressing The Objection Of “Brute Facts”, A brute fact would be a state of affairs that just is, with no cause or explanation of its existence or nature. However brute facts in it of themself are unable to be proven through only reason/a priori arguments due to their very nature. Despite this, if a person wishes to claim that things are simply brute facts, then they must first rule out any explanations (like the necessary existence we’re positing here) otherwise the brute facts would have a comparatively smaller truth value than our explanation, and with parsimony it would not make any logical sense for anyone to accept things being brute facts if there are other valid explanations available. Appealing to brute facts necessitates that one must rule out any other explanation to begin with