How does the cosmological argument try to prove God from the existence of the universe, and do Hume and Russell refute it?
The cosmological argument: Aquinas's first three ways (motion, cause and contingency), the principle of sufficient reason and the rejection of infinite regress, the Kalam argument, and the criticisms from Hume and Russell.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's first three ways (motion, cause and contingency), the rejection of infinite regress, the principle of sufficient reason, the Kalam argument, and the criticisms from Hume and Russell.
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
You need to explain the cosmological argument for God, above all Aquinas's first three ways (the arguments from motion, efficient cause and contingency), the rejection of an infinite regress, the principle of sufficient reason, and the Kalam version, and then evaluate the criticisms from David Hume and Bertrand Russell. This is the second classical argument for God's existence in AS 8, reasoning from the existence of the universe rather than its order.
Aquinas's first three ways
Each way shares the same engine: a chain of dependence (movers, causes, contingent things), the impossibility of an actual infinite regress, and therefore a first member that is not itself dependent, which Aquinas identifies as God.
Infinite regress and sufficient reason
The Kalam argument
Hume's and Russell's criticisms
The two most important challenges question the logic and the leap to God.
- The fallacy of composition (Hume, Russell). What is true of each part need not be true of the whole; even if every event in the universe has a cause, it does not follow that the universe as a whole has a cause.
- The universe as a brute fact (Russell). In his debate with Copleston, Russell said "the universe is just there, and that's all", denying that it needs an explanation; the principle of sufficient reason can be rejected.
- Making God an exception (Hume, Russell). If everything needs a cause, so does God; if God can be uncaused or necessary, so could the universe, so the argument stops arbitrarily.
- The leap to the God of theism. Even granting a first cause, the argument does not show it is single, personal, infinite or the God worshipped in religion.
Strengths and weaknesses
A model evaluation paragraph might run: "The cosmological argument has the strength of taking seriously the deepest question we can ask, why there is something rather than nothing, and the contingency version in particular is not as easily dismissed as Russell's 'brute fact' reply suggests, since to call the universe a brute fact is simply to refuse the demand for an explanation rather than to answer it. Yet the criticisms cut deep. The fallacy of composition shows that a cause for each part need not give a cause for the whole; the principle of sufficient reason can be denied; and even a successful argument reaches only a first cause or necessary being, not the personal, loving God of theism, a gap the argument cannot close by itself. The judgement, therefore, is that the cosmological argument poses a serious question and points towards a necessary being, but it neither compels assent nor delivers the God of religion."
Try this
Q1. What is the difference between a contingent and a necessary being? [2 marks]
- Cue. A contingent being can fail to exist and depends on another; a necessary being cannot fail to exist and exists in itself.
Q2. Explain the Kalam cosmological argument. [6 marks]
- Cue. Whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist (an infinite past being impossible); so the universe has a cause, a personal being who brought time into existence.
Q3. "The cosmological argument tells us nothing about the God of religion." Discuss. [12 marks]
- Cue. Weigh the gap between a first cause or necessary being and the personal, loving God of theism against the reply that the argument is only one stage in a cumulative case. Reach a judgement.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of CCEA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
CCEA AS 8 201912 marksExplain Aquinas's cosmological argument.Show worked answer →
An AO1 question, so reward accurate exposition of the first three ways and
their shared structure.
The three ways. Explain the first way (motion or change, requiring an
unmoved mover), the second way (efficient causation, requiring an uncaused
first cause), and the third way (contingency, requiring a necessary being).
The shared engine. A strong answer brings out the common moves: nothing can
cause or move itself, an actual infinite regress of causes is impossible,
so there must be a first member, which everyone calls God.
The character of the argument. It is a posteriori and inductive, arguing
from the existence and features of the universe to God as its ultimate
explanation. Accurate use of the three ways reaches the top band.
CCEA AS 8 202212 marksComment on the view that the cosmological argument fails because it makes an exception for God.Show worked answer →
An AO2 evaluation question, so argue both sides and judge.
Supporting the claim. Russell and Hume object that if everything needs a
cause, so does God, and if God can be uncaused or necessary, so could the
universe itself, so the argument is inconsistent or stops arbitrarily.
Challenging the claim. Defenders reply that the argument does not say
everything has a cause, but that contingent things do, and that God is by
definition a necessary being, not an exception but a different kind of
thing.
A judgement that the objection has force against careless versions but is
answered by the contingency version, while the leap to the God of theism
remains questionable, reaches the higher bands.
Related dot points
- The design (teleological) argument: Aquinas's fifth way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, the argument from order and purpose, and the challenges from Hume, Darwin and the problem of evil, with the anthropic principle as a modern restatement.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to the design (teleological) argument. Covers Aquinas's fifth way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, the arguments from order and purpose, and the criticisms from Hume, Darwin and the problem of evil, with the anthropic principle as a modern restatement.
- The problem of evil: the logical and evidential problems, the inconsistent triad, moral and natural evil, and the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies as responses, with the free will defence.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to the problem of evil. Covers the logical and evidential problems, the inconsistent triad, the distinction between moral and natural evil, the free will defence, and the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies as responses to the challenge.
- Religious experience: types (mystical, conversion, numinous, corporate), William James and the marks of mysticism, Otto and the numinous, Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony, and naturalistic challenges.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to religious experience. Covers the main types (mystical, conversion, numinous and corporate), William James's four marks of mysticism, Otto and the numinous, Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony, and the naturalistic challenges to using experience as evidence for God.
- The relationship between religion and morality: divine command theory, the Euthyphro dilemma, the autonomy and heteronomy of ethics, conscience, and whether morality depends on God.
A CCEA AS 7 guide to the relationship between religion and morality. Covers divine command theory, the Euthyphro dilemma, the autonomy and heteronomy of ethics, the role of conscience, and the debate over whether morality depends on God or can stand independently of religion.
Sources & how we know this
- CCEA GCE Religious Studies (2016) specification — CCEA (2016)