Taylor's Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

1.      There is some explanation (either known or not known) for everything

         a.      This is the principle of sufficient reason (=PSR)

         b.      It says “for every positive fact there is some reason, explanation, or cause for why it is so and not otherwise”

2.      Existence requires explanation (non-existence does not, though ceasing to exist does)

3.      The world's (i.e., the universe's) existence requires explanation (as much as would the existence of a huge translucent ball)

         a.      Even though one is not surprised by the world’s existence, it still requires an explanation

4.      Two points Taylor brings out to respond to possible objections:

5.      (1) Postulating a beginningless world does not explain the world's existence

         a.      Even if the world has always existed, this fact requires explanation, since telling us how old something is--even infinitely old--isn't to explain its existence.

         b.      (Taylor is not denying the possibility of a beginningless world, but he is denying that such a world's existence needs no explanation.)

         c.      Note that other versions of the cosmological argument (Kalam versions) deny the possibility of a beginningless world and uses this to argue for God’s existence.

                   i.       Kalam cosmological argument formulation

                            (1)    Premise One: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

                            (2)    Premise Two: The universe began to exist

                            (3)    Conclusion: Universe has a cause

                            (4)    NOTE: THIS IS NOT TAYLOR’S VERSION

6.      (2) God can be the creator of the world even if the world has always existed

         a.      Need to distinguish between two sense of creation/causation:

         b.      Creation/causation as involving a preceding cause bringing something into existence for the first time.

                   i.       If the universe has always existed, there is no such cause of it

         c.      Creation/causation as ontological dependence (e.g., the way a beam of light depends on a candle or a thought depends on a mind) and such dependence can exist even if the dependent being has always existed.

7.      The reason for the world must either be within it or outside it; if it is within it, the world is a necessary (=independent) being, if it is outside it, the world is a contingent (=dependent) being.

                   i.       Examples of necessary versus contingent truths

         b.      Necessary beings: Couldn't have failed to exist; exist by their own nature; have their own reason for existence within themselves; have to be eternal (they can't come into being or perish).

         c.      Contingent beings: May or may not exist; depend on something else for their existence; perishable.

         d.      Impossible beings: Cannot exist in virtue of their own nature.

         e.      Eternal beings: Those that have always existed and will always exist (could be contingent or necessary)

8.      The world is a contingent being (it didn't have to exist), and so the cause/reason for its existence is outside it.

         a.      Each particular thing in the world did not have to exist (they are all contingent).

         b.      So too, it is possible that the totality of all things in the world might not have existed; this means the world is a contingent being

                   i.       This second claim –though plausible–does not follow from the first; claiming it did would be the fallacy of composition (because something is true of the parts/members, it must be true of the whole/group)

9.      That on which the world depends is itself either necessary or contingent (it either exists by its own nature or not).

10.    Postulating an infinite series of contingent beings as an explanation of the cause of the contingent world doesn't explain the existence of contingent beings (why things which might not have existed, do in fact exist)

         a.      And the PSR requires such an explanation

11.    Therefore, there must be a necessary being (which exists by its own nature and is not dependent on anything else) on which the world (the totality of contingent beings) depends.

12.    This necessary being is God.

         a.      To say God is a necessary being is not to say God is self-caused in the sense of is a preceding cause who brought him/herself into existence, for this is impossible (can you explain why?).

         b.      Instead, saying God is a necessary being is to say he is self-caused in the sense that God has his own reason for existing

Study Questions on Taylor’s Cosmological Argument

1.      Does Taylor deny that the world could have always existed? Do you think it is possible the world could have always existed?

2.      Why doesn't the possibility that the universe has always existed undermine the possibility of arguing that God must exist to explain the existence of the world?

3.      What is the difference between creation as a preceding cause bringing something into existence and creation as ontological dependence?

4.      What is a necessary being? A contingent being? An impossible being? An eternal being? Give examples. Is a necessary being an eternal being? Might a contingent being be eternal? Is the idea of a necessary being intelligible?

5.      According to Taylor, can God exist without a cause? Does Taylor think God is an exception to the principle of sufficient reason?

6.      What is problematic about the notion of God as a self-caused being in the sense of a being who brought him/herself into existence? In what sense does Taylor think God is self-caused?

7.      Why can't the world have come into existence without a cause or have always existed without any cause?