Does the existence of a changing, contingent universe require a first cause or necessary being beyond itself, or can the universe be a brute fact?
Component 01 Arguments from observation: the cosmological argument of Aquinas (the first three Ways, from motion, causation and contingency) and the Kalam argument, together with the criticisms of Hume and Russell.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's first three Ways (motion, causation, contingency), the Kalam argument from a beginning in time, and the criticisms of Hume (the causal leap) and Russell (the universe as a brute fact and the fallacy of composition), with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
The cosmological argument is the second of OCR's arguments from observation (a posteriori, inductive). It reasons from the existence of a changing, dependent universe to a first cause or necessary being beyond it. You study Aquinas's first three Ways (from motion, causation and contingency) and the Kalam argument (from a beginning in time), and the criticisms of Hume (the causal leap) and Russell (the universe as a "brute fact" and the fallacy of composition). The exam rewards understanding each move and then evaluating whether the universe requires an explanation beyond itself.
The answer
Aquinas's first three Ways
The Kalam argument
Hume's criticism
Russell: the universe as a brute fact
Examples in context
Try this
Q1. "The cosmological argument fails to prove that God exists." Discuss. [40 marks]
- What the marker wants. An AO2 essay setting Aquinas and Kalam against Hume's causal objections and Russell's brute-fact reply, judging whether the argument proves God, only makes God probable, or fails. AO1 out of 25, AO2 out of 15.
Q2. Assess whether an infinite regress of causes is genuinely impossible. [40 marks]
- Cue. Aquinas and Kalam reject an infinite regress as explaining nothing or being an impossible actual infinite. Weigh this against the reply that a beginningless series may be coherent, and judge whether the rejection is justified.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of OCR exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
OCR H573/01 2018 (style)20 marksAssess the view that the cosmological argument proves the existence of God. (The full OCR tariff for this essay is 40 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.)Show worked answer →
A 40-mark Component 01 essay on the six-level scheme (AO1 out of 25, AO2 out of 15). Levels-based marking rewards a sustained, balanced argument with named scholars and a justified conclusion, not a description.
Explain (AO1). Aquinas's first three Ways argue from motion (the unmoved mover), causation (the uncaused first cause) and contingency (a necessary being grounding contingent things), since an infinite regress explains nothing. The Kalam argument adds that whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, so it has a cause.
Evaluate (AO2). Hume questions the move from a finite universe to an infinite cause and whether the universe needs a cause at all. Russell calls the universe a "brute fact" that is "just there" and accuses the argument of the fallacy of composition. Defenders reply that demanding no explanation simply abandons enquiry.
Judge. A top answer decides whether "proof" is the right word, given the argument is at best inductive, and supports the verdict. A clear, defended conclusion lifts the response to the top level.
OCR H573/01 2021 (style)20 marksCritically assess Russell's claim that the universe is a brute fact. (The full OCR tariff for this essay is 40 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.)Show worked answer →
A levels-of-response essay testing AO1 understanding of Russell's reply and AO2 evaluation of how convincing it is.
Explain. Debating Copleston in 1948, Russell holds the universe is "just there, and that's all": it needs no cause or explanation. He accuses the cosmological argument of the fallacy of composition, the error of inferring that because each part has a cause the whole does.
Evaluate. Russell is right that the part-whole inference is not automatic, and the principle of sufficient reason is not self-evidently true. Yet calling the universe a brute fact arguably abandons the demand for explanation that drives all enquiry and science, which is a serious cost.
Judge. A high-level answer weighs whether the brute-fact reply is a reasonable stopping point or an evasion, and reaches a justified conclusion.
Related dot points
- Component 01 Arguments from observation: the teleological (design) argument of Aquinas (the Fifth Way) and Paley (the watch analogy), together with Hume's criticisms and the challenge of Darwinian evolution.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the teleological (design) argument. Covers Aquinas's Fifth Way (design qua regularity), Paley's watch analogy (design qua purpose), Hume's criticisms of the analogy and the inference to one perfect designer, and the Darwinian challenge, with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 Arguments from reason: the ontological argument of Anselm (Proslogion II and III), with Descartes's and Malcolm's developments, together with the criticisms of Gaunilo (the perfect island) and Kant (existence is not a predicate).
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the ontological argument. Covers Anselm's two forms (Proslogion II and III), Descartes's supremely perfect being, Malcolm's necessary existence, and the criticisms of Gaunilo (the perfect island) and Kant (existence is not a predicate), with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 Ancient philosophical influences: Plato (the Forms, the Form of the Good, the analogy of the cave) and Aristotle (the four causes and the Prime Mover), and the contrast between Plato's rationalism and Aristotle's empiricism.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to ancient philosophical influences. Covers Plato's Theory of Forms, the Form of the Good and the analogy of the cave, Aristotle's four causes and the Prime Mover, and the contrast between Platonic rationalism and Aristotelian empiricism that the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 01 The nature of God: the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and eternity, the dilemma of foreknowledge and free will, and the contrast between God as timeless (Boethius, Aquinas) and everlasting (Swinburne).
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the nature of God. Covers omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence and eternity, the coherence problems each raises, the dilemma of foreknowledge and free will, and the contrast between a timeless God (Boethius, Aquinas) and an everlasting God (Swinburne), with the AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 01 The problem of evil: the logical and evidential problems (Mackie, Rowe), the Augustinian theodicy (privation, the Fall, free will) and the Irenaean (Hick's soul-making) theodicy, with their strengths and weaknesses.
An OCR A-Level Religious Studies Component 01 guide to the problem of evil. Covers the logical problem (Mackie's inconsistent triad), the evidential problem (Rowe), the Augustinian theodicy (privation of good, the Fall, free will) and the Irenaean soul-making theodicy (Hick), with the strengths, weaknesses and AO2 evaluation the exam rewards.
Sources & how we know this
- OCR A Level Religious Studies (H573) specification — OCR (2016)
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (First Part, Question 2), translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province — Project Gutenberg (1274)