EnglandReligious StudiesSyllabus dot point

Does the existence of a contingent universe require a necessary first cause, or do Hume and Russell show that the cosmological argument fails?

Component 2 the cosmological argument: Aquinas's Third Way (contingency), the Copleston-Russell debate, and Hume's challenges, with strengths and weaknesses.

An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's Third Way from contingency, the Copleston-Russell radio debate over the principle of sufficient reason, Hume's challenges (fallacy of composition, the gap to a single God), and the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.816 min answerUpdated 2026-06-02

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Quick answer

The cosmological argument is an inductive (a posteriori) argument that the existence of the universe requires a first cause or necessary being, God. Aquinas's Third Way argues from contingency: the things we observe are contingent, meaning they come into and go out of existence and need not exist; but if everything were contingent, then at some point nothing would have existed, and since nothing comes from nothing, nothing would exist now, which is false; so there must be at least one necessary being that does not depend on anything else for its existence, and this is God. In the 1948 BBC debate, Frederick Copleston defended a version using the principle of sufficient reason, that everything must have an explanation, so the whole series of contingent things needs an explanation that is itself necessary. Bertrand Russell rejected the demand: the universe is "just there, and that's all", a brute fact that needs no explanation, and asking for the cause of the whole series commits the fallacy of composition (the parts having causes does not mean the whole does). David Hume pressed similar points: the causal principle may not apply to the universe as a whole, a "necessary being" may be unintelligible, and even a first cause need not be the single, personal, good God of theism. AO2 marks come from judging whether the argument is sound and whether it reaches God, and concluding.

Jump to a section

What this dot point is asking
The answer
Examples in context
Try this

What this dot point is asking

Eduqas Component 2 studies the cosmological argument, an inductive argument for God from the existence of the universe. You learn Aquinas's Third Way (the argument from contingency), the famous Copleston-Russell radio debate of 1948 over the principle of sufficient reason, and Hume's challenges. The exam rewards explaining the argument and the debate precisely (AO1) and evaluating whether the cosmological argument succeeds, both as a proof and as a route to the God of theism (AO2).

The answer

Aquinas's Third Way: the argument from contingency

The Copleston-Russell debate

Hume's challenges

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths: the argument addresses the deep question of why there is something rather than nothing; the principle of sufficient reason is a natural demand that underlies all enquiry; and treating the universe as a brute fact is itself a substantial assumption. Weaknesses: the fallacy of composition and Hume's doubts about the causal principle and necessary being; the gap between a first cause and God; and the symmetry objection (what caused God?).

Examples in context

Building an AO2 paragraph on whether the universe needs an explanation

step 1 State the claim precisely

State, do not narrate: "Copleston argues from the principle of sufficient reason that everything must have an explanation, so the whole series of contingent things requires an explanation that is itself necessary, namely God."

step 2 Put the strongest objection against it

Bring in the challenge: "Russell rejects the demand: the universe is 'just there, and that's all', a brute fact needing no explanation, and inferring a cause of the whole from the causes of its parts commits the fallacy of composition."

step 3 Weigh the exchange

Judge it: "Russell is right that the inference from parts to whole is not automatically valid; but treating the entire universe as an inexplicable brute fact is itself a bold metaphysical claim, and the principle of sufficient reason, which we rely on everywhere in science, makes Copleston's demand for an explanation at least reasonable rather than confused."

step 4 Reach a justified conclusion

Close with a defended verdict: "The cosmological argument does not prove God, since the necessary being it reaches need not be the personal God of theism and the brute-fact reply cannot be ruled out; but it is not refuted either, because it presses the legitimate question of why anything exists, so it is best judged a suggestive argument that supports, without proving, theism." A reasoned conclusion reaches the top band.

Try this

Q1. Explain Hume's criticisms of the cosmological argument. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

What the marker wants. Accurate account of the doubts about applying the causal principle to the whole universe, the unintelligibility of a necessary being, and the gap between a first cause and God, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.

Q2. "The universe is a brute fact that needs no explanation." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]

Cue. Weigh Russell's brute-fact claim and the fallacy of composition against Copleston's principle of sufficient reason and the demand to explain why there is something rather than nothing, and judge. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

Eduqas A120 2019 (style)20 marksExplain Aquinas's Third Way and the Copleston-Russell debate about the cosmological argument. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]

Show worked answer →

A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain the argument and the debate accurately.

Aquinas's Third Way (from contingency): things in the world are contingent (they come into and go out of existence); if everything were contingent, then at some time nothing would have existed, and nothing could come from nothing, so nothing would exist now; therefore there must be a necessary being that does not depend on anything else, which is God. Copleston (1948 debate) reformulates this with the principle of sufficient reason: everything must have an explanation, and the explanation of the whole contingent series must be a necessary being. Russell rejects the demand: the universe is "just there, and that's all", a brute fact needing no explanation, and to ask for the cause of the whole is a fallacy of composition. A top band answer states the Third Way and both sides of the debate accurately.

Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"The cosmological argument fails to prove the existence of God." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]

Show worked answer →

A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.

For failure: Hume argues the principle that everything has a cause may not apply to the universe as a whole (fallacy of composition: the parts having causes does not mean the whole does); a necessary being may be unintelligible; even if there is a first cause, the argument does not reach the personal, good God of theism; Russell calls the universe a brute fact. For success: the argument explains why there is something rather than nothing, the principle of sufficient reason is a reasonable demand, and a brute-fact universe is itself a large assumption. Weigh whether the argument is sound and whether it reaches God, and conclude.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this

Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
Copleston and Russell, A Debate on the Existence of God (1948) — BBC (1948)