Robert Koons' Cosmological Argument for the Necessary Fact

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Saeed Kianam 1
Amirhossein Zadyousefi 2
1 M.A. Graduate in Philosophy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Logic, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
10.30497/prr.2024.245219.1871
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
cosmological argument
Robert Koons
necessary fact
mereology
defeasible reasoning
Subjects
Alexander, D. 2008. “The Recent Revival of Cosmological Arguments.” Philosophy Compass, 3(3): 541-550.
Baggini, J., & P. S. Fosl. 2020. The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods. John Wiley & Sons.
Coleman, D. (Ed.). 2007. Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: And Other Writings. Cambridge University Press.
Koons, R. C. (1997). “A New Look at the Cosmological Argument.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 34(2): 193-211.
Koons, R. C. 2001. “Defeasible Reasoning, Special Pleading and the Cosmological Argument: A Reply to Oppy.” Faith and Philosophy, 18(2): 192-203.
Koons, Robert. 2022.  "Defeasible Reasoning." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Loux, M. J., & T. M. Crisp. 2017. Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge.
Menzel, Christopher. 2022a . "Possible Worlds." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Menzel, Christopher. 2022b. "Actualism." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Movahed, Ziya. 2014. Modal Logic. Tehran: Hermes Publication. (In Persian)
Nabavi, Lotfollah. 2004. Foundations of Modal Logic. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press. (In Persian)
Oppy, G. 1999. “Koons’ Cosmological Argument.” Faith and Philosophy, 16(3): 378-389.
Oppy, G. 2004. “Faulty Reasoning about Default Principles in Cosmological Arguments.” Faith and Philosophy, 21(2): 242-249.
Oppy, G. 2006. Arguing about Gods. Cambridge University Press.
Plantinga, A. 1998. “God, Arguments for the Existence of.” Pp. 85-93, in Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy, vol. 4. Routledge.
Reichenbach, Bruce. 2022. "Cosmological Argument." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Russell, B., & S. Blackburn. 2020. Why I Am Not a Christian And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects. Routledge.
Rutten, Emanuel (Ed.). 2012. A Critical Assessment of Contemporary Cosmological Arguments: Towards a Renewed Case for Theism. VU Publishers.
Saeedimehr, Mohammad. 2015. “Necessity, Implication and Possible Worlds.” Tehran: Elmi va farhangi Publication. (In Persian)
Sobel, J. H. 2003. Logic and Theism: Arguments for and Against Beliefs in God. Cambridge University Press.
Steinhart, E. 2017. More Precisely: The Math You Need to Do Philosophy. Broadview Press.
Varzi, Achille. 2019. "Mereology." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Zarepour, M. S. 2022. Necessary Existence and Monotheism: An Avicennian Account of the Islamic Conception of Divine Unity. Cambridge University Press.
Philosophy of Religion Research
Volume 22, Issue 2 - Serial Number 44
November 2024
Pages 137-154