Cosmological.

AO1 – Knowledge (1–15)

  1. What are the three main forms of the cosmological argument, and how did Aquinas contribute to it?

  2. Why does the cosmological argument require a “1st cause,” and how does this relate to God?

  3. How does the Big Bang support the idea of an “uncaused cause” in the cosmological argument, and why is this linked to God?

  4. Explain Aquinas’ 1st Way from motion and how it leads to the conclusion that God exists.

  5. Explain Aquinas’ argument from motion and why he concludes God must exist.

  6. Explain Aquinas’ 2nd Way from causation and why it leads to the conclusion God exists.

  7. Summarise Aquinas’ argument from causation and explain why he concludes God must exist.

  8. Explain Aquinas’ argument from contingency and why it leads him to conclude God exists.

  9. Explain David Hume’s criticism of Aquinas’ cosmological argument and how it challenges the claim the universe must have a 1st cause.

  10. How does David Hume challenge the assumption that the universe’s beginning proves the existence of God?

  11. Why did David Hume claim the cosmological argument cannot establish the existence of a transcendent creator?

  12. How did Immanuel Kant challenge the cosmological argument’s claim that God caused the universe?

  13. Why do Hume and Kant argue the cosmological argument fails to provide evidence for God as the 1st cause?

  14. What are the strengths of the cosmological argument?

  15. How does Swinburne use Ockham’s razor to defend the cosmological argument?

AO2 – Evaluation (16–30)

  1. What are the weaknesses of the cosmological argument?

  2. How does Bertrand Russell use the ideas of brute fact and the fallacy of composition to challenge the cosmological argument?

  3. Explain how the fallacy of composition challenges the cosmological argument.

  4. How does Bertrand Russell’s view that the universe “just is” challenge the cosmological argument?

  5. How did Copleston respond to Russell’s claim that the universe “just is,” and what point was he making about engaging in the debate on God’s existence?

  6. How did Russell respond to Copleston’s criticism, and what challenge did he raise for the cosmological argument itself?

  7. How does the concept of an infinite regress challenge the cosmological argument?

  8. Why might the idea of a “necessary being” be difficult to justify in the cosmological argument?

  9. How do modern scientific explanations, like the steady-state theory or Newton’s laws, challenge the cosmological argument?

  10. How does the Big Bang provide support but not definitive proof for the cosmological argument?

  11. Why might the cosmological argument appeal to human intuitions about causation and purpose?

  12. How does the argument’s reliance on induction affect its strength?

  13. How could the cosmological argument be seen as probabilistic rather than certain?

  14. Why do some philosophers argue that the cosmological argument cannot identify the God of classical theism specifically?

  15. How might combining the cosmological argument with other arguments, like the teleological argument, strengthen its overall case?

AO1 – Knowledge

  1. The cosmological argument, or 1st cause argument, seeks to prove God’s existence. It has three main forms: the argument from motion/change, from causation, and from contingency. Thomas Aquinas adapted Aristotle’s ideas to develop one of the most influential versions in the Middle Ages.

  2. The cosmological argument infers God’s existence from the universe. It claims the universe requires a cause, and this cause must be something outside the universe—typically identified as God. The argument relies on the idea of a “1st cause” to avoid infinite regress.

  3. Every event in the universe has a cause, forming a long chain of causes. Modern science points to the Big Bang as a 1st event, which could not itself have been caused. The cosmological argument holds the cause of this 1st event must be uncaused and capable of causing other events, identified as God.

  4. Aquinas’ 1st Way argues from motion/change. Things are constantly changing, but nothing can change itself—it must be changed by something already actual. The chain cannot go back infinitely, so there must be a 1st changer that is unchanging. This unchanging first cause is identified as God.

  5. All change is caused by something else, but the chain cannot be infinite. There must be a 1st mover, itself unmoved, which starts all movement. This first mover is God.

  6. Aquinas’ 2nd Way argues everything has an efficient cause, but nothing can cause itself. An infinite chain of causes is impossible, so there must be a 1st efficient cause, which is God.

  7. Everything in the universe has a cause, and each cause has its own cause. An infinite chain is impossible, so there must be an uncaused cause that sets everything else in motion. This uncaused cause is God.

  8. Some things in the universe are contingent—they may exist or not exist. If everything were contingent, there could have been a time when nothing existed, so nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be something necessary in itself, causing the necessity of other things. This necessary being is God.

  9. Hume argued humans often overestimate what they can know about the world. Cause and effect aren’t inherently connected; we imagine a connection through habit. Aquinas is mistaken in assuming because we see causes, the universe must have a 1st cause.

  10. Cause and effect in the universe don’t automatically point to God. Even if the universe had a beginning, this doesn’t prove God created it. The universe could exist as a “brute fact,” or its beginning may have another explanation.

  11. The cosmological argument assumes too much by claiming the universe must have a cause. We have no direct experience of the universe’s creation, so we cannot meaningfully claim knowledge of its cause. Cause and effect are observed within the universe, but the universe itself is unique.

  12. Kant argued the principle “every event must have a cause” only applies to things we can experience. We cannot extend this to the universe as a whole, which is beyond experience. God as a causal being outside space and time is unknowable.

  13. Hume and Kant emphasise we lack empirical evidence for God as the 1st cause. Even if a 1st cause exists, it could be the material universe rather than God. Without observing the cause, we cannot be certain how it arose. Kant critiques moving from observable experience to something beyond experience.

  14. Swinburne argues the cosmological argument works as a strong inductive argument, pointing to the likelihood that the God of classical theism is the unmoved mover, uncaused causer, and necessary creator. The argument is a posteriori, relying on empirical evidence, and the Big Bang shows the universe had a beginning. It appeals to human desire for explanation and gives a rational basis for God as the 1st cause.

  15. Ockham’s razor says we shouldn’t create more assumptions than necessary. If both “God caused the universe” and “the universe just exists” are possible, God is the simpler explanation, supporting the cosmological argument.

AO2 – Evaluation

  1. A key criticism is the logical contradiction: it claims an actual infinite is impossible, yet concludes God, who is infinite, exists. It doesn’t definitively prove the God of classical theism. It relies on assumptions, and scientific theories like Newton’s laws or the Big Bang offer alternative explanations.

  2. Russell rejects that the universe is contingent or dependent on anything beyond itself. He treats it as a brute fact and accuses Copleston and Aquinas of the fallacy of composition—assuming because everything in the universe has a cause, the universe itself must have a cause.

  3. The fallacy of composition occurs when what is true of the parts is assumed true of the whole. Applied here, assuming individual objects have causes does not mean the universe as a whole has a cause.

  4. Russell argued the universe “just is” and doesn’t need a cause or reason. This challenges the cosmological argument by undermining the need for a 1st cause and allows for infinite regress.

  5. Copleston responded that accepting the universe as a brute fact avoids engaging in the debate about God’s existence. If Russell refuses to consider the cause, the argument cannot even be addressed.

  6. Russell argued the debate depends on whether the question “Why is the universe here?” is meaningful. He considered it meaningless and highlighted that if everything requires an explanation, God would also require one, challenging the 1st cause claim.

  7. Infinite regress challenges the cosmological argument because it questions whether the chain of causes must have a starting point.

  8. The idea of a necessary being is difficult to justify because we cannot directly observe it or prove its necessity; it relies on abstract reasoning.

  9. Scientific theories like the steady-state theory and Newton’s laws offer alternative explanations, suggesting the universe could be eternal or arise spontaneously, weakening the need for a 1st cause.

  10. The Big Bang provides support for a beginning of the universe, but it does not prove God caused it; the 1st cause remains unobserved.

  11. The argument appeals to human intuitions about causation and purpose because people naturally look for explanations for existence.

  12. Relying on induction affects the argument’s strength because conclusions are probable, not certain.

  13. The cosmological argument is probabilistic because it suggests a likely first cause but cannot provide absolute proof.

  14. Some philosophers argue it cannot identify the God of classical theism specifically, as it only demonstrates a 1st cause or necessary being, not attributes like omnibenevolence or omnipotence.

  15. Combining it with the teleological argument could strengthen the overall case by adding evidence of purpose and design to support God as the 1st cause.