The epistemic value of the cosmological proof for the existence of God (The case of Alexander Pruss)

Proofs in favor of the existence of God are products of natural theology, which show that belief in God is epistemologically justified and in this context, theism is epistemically valuable. Cosmological proofs are a posteriori presented by theists, who argue that the existence of God can be reached based on facts. Numerous different cosmological proofs have been presented to date. One of the contemporary examples of cosmological proofs is the cosmological proof of Alexander Pruss, which is based on a version of the principle of sufficient reason and aims to show that the existence of the cosmos can be explained by the causal activity of a being transcendent to it. The principle of sufficient reason, which Pruss includes as a premise in his cosmological proof, differs from previous cosmological proofs by arguing that the explanation is not logically necessary. According to Pruss, such a principle both allows for free will and provides an opportunity to respond to the indeterminacies in quantum mechanics from a theistic point of view. Another aspect that shows the originality of Pruss's argument is the modal justifications Pruss offers in favor of the sufficient reason principle. The aim of this study is to examine to what extent Pruss' cosmological proof can provide answers to traditional and contemporary objections. As a result of the evaluations, it has been seen that although Pruss's cosmological proof can show that quantum uncertainties are explainable provided that certain metaphysical presuppositions are accepted, and in this framework, it reveals that the cosmos arose as a result of the causal activity of a transcendent being, it is not possible to argue that the cosmos was created by this transcendent entity for a purpose. For this reason, it does not seem possible to say that Pruss's cosmological proof is a successful proof for the existence of God.