Document Type : Original Research
Authors
1 M.A. Graduate in Philosophy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Logic, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
The cosmological argument consists of a group of arguments designed to demonstrate the existence of a necessary fact, based on at least one a posteriori premise. At the end of the 20th century, Robert Koons proposed an advanced version of this argument, claiming that it successfully addresses the objections raised by philosophers such as Hume, Kant, and Russell. To support this claim, he incorporates 20th-century developments in logic and philosophy, including modal logic, non-monotonic logic, and mereology. These innovations give Koons's version of the cosmological argument a distinct, innovative character. He begins by introducing the concept of "cosmos," defining it as the aggregate of all wholly contingent facts, and proceeds to demonstrate that the cosmos itself is a wholly contingent fact. Using the causal principle that every wholly contingent fact must have a cause (unless proven otherwise), he argues for the existence of a cause for the cosmos. He further asserts that, since cause and effect must be distinct in terms of existence, the cause of the cosmos cannot be contingent but must instead be a necessary fact. In this paper, we first outline the assumptions underlying Koons's argument, then evaluate its effectiveness in addressing the objections raised by previous philosophers.
Keywords
Main Subjects