The universe has a number of unique features that weaken Taylor's appeal to analogy. In the end, the shift from causation to explanation, and from the material to the formal mode, seems to have weakened rather than strengthened the cosmological argument. The medieval version of the argument supported the conclusion that there is a necessarily existing object, and this conclusion did not depend on our being able to conceive of such a being. The modern version, in contrast, seeks to convince us of the existence of a being whose existence is self-explanatory. If I cannot conceive of a being whose nature would make its existence self-explanatory, then I have good reason to reject the conclusion of the modern argument.
Mere introspection is irrelevant, in contrast, to the medieval version of the argument.
In the section above, I gave some reason for thinking that the PSR guarantees that explanations necessitate their explananda, or, as I will put it, causes necessitate their effects. However, if this is true, then there is really no contingency in the world. Everything that happens had to happen. According to the PSR, every truth has a sufficient reason. The chain of reasons terminates in a self-explanatory truth, that is absolutely necessary.