Russell's objection to the cosmological argument:
* The cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition.
* Russell gives an example to illustrate the fallacy of composition, stating that every man has a mother, but that doesn't mean that the human race has a mother.
* The same logic is used in the PSR, which says that every event/truth requires an explanation, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the universe as a whole requires an explanation.
* Russell suggests that we accept that the universe is just there, and that's all.
Aquinas' third way:
* Aquinas argues that if the universe was only made up of contingent beings, then there must be nothing at all at some point.
* This also commits the fallacy of composition.
* Aquinas gives an example of five Canadians on a street corner in New York, where each tells us their own parts of the world are caused, but we wouldn't demand a further reason that all five are there as a whole.
* In the same way, we can explain how individual parts of the world are caused, so why do we need a further explanation for the whole thing?
Avoiding the objection:
* The fallacy of composition is not always wrong.
* There may be examples where arguing from the part to the whole is correct, such as how the universe is constructed of atoms