Cosmological Arguments

Elements in the Philosophy of Religion

by Michael Almeida

The Element discusses the structure, content, and evaluation of cosmological arguments. The introductory section investigates features essential to cosmological arguments. Traditionally, cosmological arguments are distinguished by their appeal to change, causation, contingency or objective becoming in the world. But none of these is in fact essential to the formulation of cosmological arguments. Sections 1-3 present a critical discussion of traditional Thomistic, Kalam, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments, noting various advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. Section 4 offers an entirely new approach to the cosmological argument - the approach of theistic modal realism. The proper explananda of cosmological arguments on this approach is not change, causation, contingency or objective becoming in the world. The proper explananda is the totality of metaphysical reality - all actualia and all possibilia. The result is the most compelling and least objectionable version of the cosmological argument.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion

80 pages, Paperback

Published August 23, 2018

Reviews

[Laurent Dv · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un livre d'introduction aux arguments cosmologiques en faveur de l'existence de Dieu. En gros, ce livre est assez intéressant mais des points faibles importants qui font que ce n'est plus vraiment une bon livre d'introduction aux arguments cosmologiques mais plutôt réservé à ceux qui ont déjà lus d'autres choses plus accessibles, voir complètes. Il y a d'abord une présentation générale de ce type d'arguments, puis une présentation tour à tour des sous-familles traditionnelles : arguments thomistes, arguments du kalam et arguments leibniziens (de la contingence), et enfin l'argument de l'auteur lui-même (Almeida) basé sur le réalisme modal théiste où Dieu existe l'existence du plurivers (l’ensemble de tous les univers possibles et inimaginables = l’ensemble de tous les mondes possibles).

I. Points forts
Premièrement, on a une bonne présentation et de bons challenges face aux trois sous-familles traditionnelles. Même si on n'est pas convaincu par ces objections, on a un bon résumé et aperçu des challenges rencontrés par chaque argument.
Deuxièmement, c'est la dernière partie sur l'argument d'Almeida qui est très originale. Elle permet de se familiariser avec cette version peu connue (jamais entendue parler d'elle avant pour ma part). Almeida vulgarise assez bien les notions dont a besoin son argument : mondes possibles, plurivers, etc. Je résume cette partie et son argument dans une section de cet article de blog :
https://lolophilo77.substack.com/p/in...

II. Points faibles
Premièrement, Almeida ne présente pas vraiment ce qu'est véritablement au fond un argument cosmologique et donc ce qui relie les trois sous-familles qu'il mentionne sans arrêt. Ce qui est fort dommage pour être un livre censé présenter les arguments cosmologiques en général.
Deuxièmement, j'ai l'impression qu'Almeida n'aborde pas les meilleures versions de chacune des sous-familles. Par exemple il ne mentionne pas ni ne répond aux arguments assez originaux d'Andrew Loke dans sa partie sur les arguments du kalam, ni ceux tout aussi ingénieux de Joshua Rasmussen (notamment ceux qui reposent sur une version plus faible du principe de raison suffisante) dans la partie dédiée aux arguments leibniziens. Ce qui nous laisse sur notre faim quand il dit qu'il ne trouve pas ces arguments convaincants.
Troisièmement, c'est peut-être le plus dommage, il ne donne pas explicitement son argument cosmologique original basé sur le réalisme modal théiste. On ne trouve nulle part une version formelle avec ses prémisses puis sa conclusion (prémisse 1 = "...", prémisse 2 = "...", etc. donc conclusion = "..."). Cela aurait pourtant permis de beaucoup mieux le comprendre et l'évaluer.

[Dane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Almeida does an excellent job at delineating the three families of cosmological arguments: Thomistic, Kalam, and Leibnizian. He is most critical of the Kalam, as he convincingly argues that the past having a temporal beginning makes no difference in assessing whether the universe itself requires an explanation. Ultimately, all of these traditional arguments fail because they rely upon what Almedia terms an actualist realist ontology. The best version of the cosmological argument instead draws upon theistic modal realism. While Almeida realizes that such a theory carries heavy metaphysical baggage, he argues it is the best way to deal with the problems of modal collapse, indeterminism, and chaotic possible universes. Essentially: God must serve as the explanation for the concrete Pluriverse, which as a result exists necessarily. But this, Almeida convincingly argues, is not as much of a problem as in traditional cosmological arguments, where the thing to be explained is the actual world.

[AH · Rating 5 out of 5]

it's not easy to provide a summary of an argument with such a long history, but Almeida is no doubt the right person for the job. It's a really short but informative read. Almeida spends a few pages categorizing the arguments and then offers a viewpoint on their validity (one which is mostly focused on Swinburne's take in his book The existence of God on the validity of the cosmological argument about which he says: "It seems to be equally evident that no argument from any such starting points to the existence of God is deductively valid.") Almeida then moves on to Thomistic arguments, Kalam Cosmological argument, Leibnizian variations and finally to modal realism. The final section I thought it could've included a bit more on PSR (more of van Inwagen maybe won't be a bad idea) its criticism and a few responses to that. overall I think The book is a great point to start with cosmological arguments even if all you have is at least an undergraduate understanding of philosophy.

[Nelson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book surveys a variety of different cosmological arguments. The writer sees issues with all of them and then proposes his own hypothesis. I think some of his critiques were valid, but many of them were superficial and unconvincing. He also critiques the worst manifestations of certain arguments - and so he strawman's the arguments from explanation. He barely touches arguments from contingency (as far as I can recall) which are the best route one can take in my opinion. I was also quite dissatisfied with his critique of Craig's argument (which is perhaps the best argument on offer in this paper). His criticisms were deeply unconvincing and didn't take into account counter-objections to the arguments he trotted out. His solution was to posit his own argument. However I found his argument to be somewhat implausible and unconvincing. Not only did it seem to lack simplicity in my view, but it posited things that I thought lacked plausibility. I do not recommend this book.

In conclusion, this book doesn't provide a good representation of cosmological arguments and the argument for his version isn't very good. Thus I do not recommend this book.