The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment

This monograph presents a comprehensive rehabilitation of the cosmological argument for God's existence, challenging the widespread philosophical dismissal of this classical theistic proof. Reichenbach undertakes a systematic reconstruction of the argument's logical structure while addressing its most persistent criticisms, particularly those stemming from Humean and Kantian traditions.

The work begins by distinguishing various formulations of the cosmological argument, focusing primarily on the argument from contingency rather than the temporal first cause versions. Reichenbach argues that many standard objections rest on misunderstandings of what the argument actually claims. He contends that the principle of sufficient reason, properly understood, does not require that every fact have an explanation but rather that contingent beings require explanation for their existence. This nuanced interpretation allows him to sidestep common critiques about self-causing entities or infinite regresses.

Central to Reichenbach's reassessment is his analysis of necessity and contingency. He develops a modal framework that distinguishes between logical and ontological necessity, arguing that the cosmological argument need not claim that God's existence is logically necessary in the sense of being analytically true. Instead, the argument points to a being whose existence is ontologically necessary - one that exists by its very nature and cannot fail to exist. This distinction enables him to address Kantian objections about existence not being a predicate while maintaining the coherence of necessary existence.

The monograph engages extensively with contemporary analytic philosophy, particularly the work of William Rowe, Richard Taylor, and Paul Edwards. Reichenbach responds to Rowe's criticism that the cosmological argument commits a quantifier shift fallacy, demonstrating that properly formulated versions avoid this logical error. He also addresses Edwards' critique of the principle of sufficient reason, arguing that skepticism about this principle undermines rational inquiry itself.

Reichenbach's contribution lies not in presenting radically new arguments but in clarifying traditional formulations and showing their continued philosophical viability. His careful logical analysis and engagement with modern criticisms demonstrate that reports of the cosmological argument's death have been greatly exaggerated. The work serves as both a defense of natural theology and a model of how classical arguments can be reformulated to meet contemporary philosophical standards. By showing that the cosmological argument remains philosophically respectable, Reichenbach challenges the secular consensus that emerged in twentieth-century philosophy departments.