1. By the end of today’s lesson you will:
Be able to explain what the cosmological argument is.
Understand how the cosmological argument for God’s existence is inductive and a-posteriori.
Understand Aquinas’ cosmological argument from his ‘Three Ways’:
- Motion/change
- Cause and Effect
- Contingency and Necessity.
Skills Focus
- AO1 – knowledge and understanding
- Specialist language and vocabulary

2. Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God
AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation A
Inductive arguments –
Cosmological
Whether inductive arguments for the existence of God are persuasive.
The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing.
The effectiveness of the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence.
Whether cosmological/teleological arguments are persuasive in the 21st Century.
The effectiveness of the challenges to the cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence.
Whether scientific explanations are more persuasive than philosophical explanations for the universe’s existence. B
Teleological C
Challenges to inductive arguments D
Deductive arguments –
Origins of the ontological argument
The extent to which ‘a priori’ arguments for God’s existence are persuasive.
The extent to which different religious views on the nature of God impact on arguments for the existence of God.
The effectiveness of the ontological argument for God’s existence.
Whether the ontological argument is more persuasive than the cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence.
The effectiveness of the challenges to the ontological argument for God’s existence.
The extent to which objections to the ontological argument are persuasive. E
Developments of the ontological argument F
Challenges to the ontological argument

3. AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God
AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
A: Inductive arguments – cosmological:
Inductive proofs; the concept of ‘a posteriori’. Cosmological argument: St Thomas Aquinas’ first Three Ways - (motion or change; cause and effect; contingency and necessity).
The Kalam cosmological argument with reference to William Lane Craig (rejection of actual infinities and concept of personal creator).

4. The Cosmological Argument
Cosmos = universe / world.
The cosmological argument starts from the FACT that THE UNIVERSE EXISTS.
The argument LOOKS AT THE UNIVERSE around us and seeks an EXPLANATION for its existence.
The cosmological argument posits that God HAS to exist because the universe exists. In other words, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe.
The universe could not exist without God.

5. The Cosmological Argument
The cosmological argument is INDUCTIVE, A-POSTERIORI and SYNTHETIC.
Explain how.
It uses evidence that the universe exists (we live in it, experience it etc).
From this evidence/ experience, it puts forward a possible conclusion – God exists.

6. The Cosmological Argument
Recap: The cosmological argument is …
… an inductive, a-posterioi and synthetic argument for the existence of God.
It is based on the fact that the universe exists, concluding that God is the cause of its existence.

7. The Cosmological Argument
Think back to the starter question: How did the universe get here?
Notice that whilst we had different theories we agreed that there must be some explanation/cause for its existence (e.g. Big Bang, God etc).

8. Aquinas said ...
“NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING. THE UNIVERSE EXISTS SO SOMETHING MUST HAVE MADE IT. THAT CAN ONLY BE GOD.”

9. Learning Check … By the end of the lesson you will:
Be able to explain what the cosmological argument is.
Understand how the cosmological argument for God’s existence is inductive and a-posteriori.
Understand Aquinas’ cosmological argument from his ‘Three Ways’:
- Motion/change
- Cause and Effect
- Contingency and Necessity.
Skills Focus
- AO1 – knowledge and understanding
- Specialist language and vocabulary

10. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
Hi there, I’m Tom!
I was born in 1225 and died in 1274.
I was a Roman Catholic priest and a theologian.
My writings have been adopted as the official views of the Roman Catholic Church.
I wrote ‘Five Ways’ to prove God’s existence which can be found in my best known works, the ‘Summa Theologica’.
The first three ‘Ways’ form my cosmological argument.

11. Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
Group challenge!
Number your team members.
Number 1 will leave the room first to look at the picture for 10 seconds.
You have 25 seconds to start reproducing the picture.
Then, number 2 will leave the room to look at the picture … and so in until everyone has had a go.
This task introduces students to Aquinas’ Three Ways. Based on this task they should be able to answer the questions which follow.

12. Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
Write your answer to each question on your whiteboard. Hold up your answer:
What does ‘cosmos’ mean?
The cosmological argument starts from the fact that what exists?
What type of argument is it?
In what book did Aquinas write his cosmological argument?
State Aquinas’ three ‘Ways’ which form his cosmological argument.
Who is the ‘Unmoved Mover’ and the ‘First Cause’?
Is God a ‘contingent being’ or ‘necessary being’?

13. Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
Developed ‘Five Ways’ to prove God’s existence.
The first three of his five ‘Ways’ form the cosmological argument.
Shout them out …
Motion / Change
Cause
Contingency
We will now explore each way in more depth.
You need to LISTEN carefully, but don’t write anything down. Do ask questions if you have any.

14. First Way: Motion / Change
We observe motion / change in the world. (A-posteriori evidence)
Something can only be put into motion (move / change) if force is applied to it.
In other words, something must move it. Things don’t change by themselves.
What is causing the motion/change in the above pictures?

15. First Way: Motion / Change
What does ‘infinity’ mean?
Try and think back an infinite amount …

16. First Way: Motion / Change
… It’s impossible… it goes on forever…
Aquinas argued that it is impossible for a sequence of motion/change to go back to infinity (a concept called INFINITE REGRESSION).
He said there must have been a starting point.
Aquinas argued that there must have been a first mover which itself was unmoved.
He called this the UNMOVED MOVER.
Aquinas was influenced by Greek philosopher Aristotle, who called the unmoved mover the ‘prime mover’.
THINK: 1. Why can’t the first mover move if Aquinas’ logic is to work?
2. Who is the ‘unmoved mover’ according to Aquinas?

17. First Way: Motion / Change
POTENTIALITY:
The ability to be able to move / change into something else.
ACTUALITY:
When something is in its fully realised state / has reached its potential.

18. First Way: Motion / Change
Aristotle
Aquinas
Change can only happen if something that already possessed a state of actuality acted on that which was in its state of potentiality.
Potentiality
Efficient
Cause
Actuality

19. First Way: Motion / Change
Read the information on p19-20 in your workbook entitled ‘The First Way – Motion/Change’.
Fill in the missing words and definitions.
You can use p 6-8 from your course text books to help.

20. Second Way: Cause and Effect
Everything observable in nature is subject to the law of cause and effect.
“The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.”
E.g.? THINK-PAIR-SHARE
It’s impossible for anything within the universe to cause itself.

21. Second Way: Cause and Effect
Dominoes
What caused the dominoes to fall?
But ... what caused the person?
But ... what caused ... the cause which caused the cause ....?

22. Second Way: Cause and Effect
Ultimate
Cause (Effect)
Why can’t there be an infinite number of causes?
Intermediate Cause
First efficient cause = God!
Efficient Cause

23. Second Way: Cause and Effect
“But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.” (Summa Theologica)

24. Second Way: Cause and Effect
Complete the tasks on ‘The Second Way’ on p20 in your workbook.
You can use p 8-9 in your course text book to help.

25. Third Way: Contingency and Necessity
Aquinas would argue that all of the above are CONTINGENT. What do you think this means?

26. Third Way: Contingency and Necessity
“We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be ...” (Summa Theologica)
CONTINGENT = depending on something else for its existence. Has the possibility of not existing and will cease to exist.

27. Third Way: Contingency and Necessity
“Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence... It would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence ... which is absurd.” (Summa Theologica)
What point is Aquinas making?

28. Third Way: Contingency and Necessity
Aquinas’ solution is that there has to be a NECESSARY BEING
A being who cannot not exist!
The source of existence for all contingent beings.
“This all men speak of as God”.

29. Third Way: Contingency and Necessity
Complete the tasks on ‘The Third Way - Contingency’ on p22 in your workbook.
You can use p 9-10 in your course text book to help.

30. Consolidation Tasks Complete pages 24-25 in your workbook.
Read page 26 and complete tasks 1-3
Stretch and Challenge: Copleston’s cosmological argument (p32-33).
Homework:
Questions 1-3 (workbook page 17)
Clear, concise answers required to show your understanding.

31. Learning Check … By the end of the lesson you will:
Be able to explain what the cosmological argument is.
Understand how the cosmological argument for God’s existence is inductive and a-posteriori.
Understand Aquinas’ cosmological argument from his ‘Three Ways’:
- Motion/change
- Cause and Effect
- Contingency and Necessity.
Skills Focus
- AO1 – knowledge and understanding
- Specialist language and vocabulary

32. By the end of today’s lesson you will:
Understand William Lane Craig’s Kalam cosmological argument.
Know why Craig rejects ‘actual infinites’.
Understand why God must be a personal creator according to Craig.
Skills Focus
- AO1 – knowledge and understanding
- Specialist language and vocabulary

33. AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God
AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
A: Inductive arguments – cosmological:
Inductive proofs; the concept of ‘a posteriori’. Cosmological argument: St Thomas Aquinas’ first Three Ways - (motion or change; cause and effect; contingency and necessity).
The Kalam cosmological argument with reference to William Lane Craig (rejection of actual infinities and concept of personal creator).

34. Starter
Find someone who … Page 27

35. The Kalam Argument
Complete the notes on p33-34 of your workbook during this lesson.
The Kalam argument is often referred to as the BEGINNING ARGUMENT.
Why?

36. The Kalam Argument
Kalam is an Arabic word meaning to ‘argue’ or ‘discuss’.
Muslim Scholars al-Kindi (ninth century) and al Ghazali ( ) developed the Kalam argument to explain God’s creation of the universe.

37. William Lane Craig
Contemporary American philosopher and Christian apologist (Born 1949).
Developed and modernised the Kalam argument.
Apologist = someone who writes/speaks in defence of a particular cause or belief.

38. Craig’s Argument Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

39. Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
Do you agree?

40. Premise 2: The universe began to exist
Do you agree?
What alternative explanations could there be?
The universe is INFINITE!
It has no beginning and no end!
Craig rejects this notion.

41. Actual Infinite Something that is infinite now – it is complete.
Nothing can be added to it.
It has no beginning and no end.

42. Actual Infinity Library Books Example
Imagine a library with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books.
The number of red and black books together would then equal the number of red books.
The actual infinite number always remains the same number – infinity.

43. Actual Infinity Something that is infinite has no start or end point.
Therefore nothing can be added to it – for this would entail adding something onto it, which we simply cannot do because there is no ‘gap’ in it as it is complete.

44. Actual Infinity Task Draw a circle.
Add a line to the circle without breaking the circle you have just drawn.
Impossible isn’t it!

45. Craig’s Kalam Argument
Why does Craig say that the universe cannot be an ‘actual infinite’?
Therefore, Craig says the universe began to exist.

46. Potential Infinite
Craig went on to argue that if an actual infinite is impossible, so too is a potential infinite.
Something which is not infinite now – it is in the process of becoming infinite.
It will achieve infinity in the future.

47. Potential Infinite
To add something to something else implies there is a beginning to all this.
etc. = infinite sequence of numbers.
To think of this another way ...
One has to begin somewhere, in order to start drawing a circle!
Craig argued that either something is infinite or it is not!
A ‘potential infinite’ is an oxymoron.

48. Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument
Watch this short clip to reinforce your understanding as to why Craig rejects the possibility of actual infinites:
The impossibility of actual infinites

49. Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In accepting premise 1 and 2, the conclusion reached by Craig has to be true.
If the universe had a beginning, this beginning was either caused or uncaused.
It either came about naturally, or through a personal choice…

50. Science cannot explain the origin of the universe
Craig maintains that the universe cannot be a result of a natural scientific (in terms of physical laws) causes.
Why not?
No scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe.
The universe would have had to already exist in order for the natural causes to exist.

51. The cause of the universe must be personal
Seeing as there is no scientific explanation, the cause of the universe must be a personal creator.
This personal agent must be outside of space and time.
Why?
Space and time came into being at the point of creation.

52. Craig’s final conclusion …
If the universe began to exist, and if the universe is caused, then the cause of the universe must be a personal being, who freely chooses to create the world.
Craig argues that this personal being is ...
GOD!

53. By the end of today’s lesson you will:
Know at least three of Hume’s challenges to the cosmological argument.
Understand further challenges to the argument – (these will come in useful for part b questions)

54. Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God
AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding
AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation
C: Challenges to inductive arguments
David Hume – empirical objections and critique of causes (cosmological)
David Hume – problems with analogies; rejection of traditional theistic claims: designer not necessarily God of classical theism; apprenticeship God; plurality of gods; absent god (teleological).
Alternative scientific explanations including Big Bang theory and Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection.
The effectiveness of the cosmological argument

55. Homework
AO2: spec – ‘The extent to which the kalam cosmological argument is convincing’.
Read p14 in your text book and p35-36 in your workbook.
Write two paragraphs to respond to this issue. (PESEL)

56. Hume’s Criticisms of the Cosmological Argument
Scottish philosopher
Empiricist
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
UNICEF (workbook p 39)
(N.b. This is Zoe’s acronym to help you remember Hume’s criticism. Don’t say “Hume came up with UNICEF”, in the exam!)

57. Universe = a necessary being
“Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being ... We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter.”
Hume is arguing ...
Against the need for an external necessary cause of the universe.
If God is supposed to be self-caused and began the universe, why can we simply not give the same characteristics to the universe itself?

58. Necessary being = illogical
If something is necessary, its opposite would be contradictory.
E.g. A triangle has four sides.
No statement about existence can be logically necessary.
Any being claimed to exist, may or may not exist.
E.g. Zoe exists, Dogs exist, Unicorns exist, God exists.
It is possible to say these do NOT exist. Therefore, argues Hume, God is not a necessary being!

59. Infinite Regress
Hume argued that an infinite series of causes is possible.
Does the chain of causes have to end somewhere?

60. Cause – There may not be one!
Humans assume that every event has a cause, but do they?
Matthew Taylor gives the following example to explain this point:
If you’re waiting for a bus to stop, you put your hand out and the bus should come to a stop (providing the driver does not ignore you or fail to see you).
What causes the bus to stop?
If you had never before seen a bus or a person requesting a bus to stop, why would it be wrong to conclude that the person putting out their hand caused the bus to stop?

61. Cause – There may not be one! (Continued ...)
We can make assumptions about cause and effect that can be mistaken.
Hume argued that we assume that there is a relationship between cause and effect , because our minds have developed a habit of seeing causes and automatically associating effects with them.
Hume stated that, as a matter of logic, one cannot claim or assume that every effect has a cause.
This undermines Aquinas’ first two ways.

62. Effect – Like effects have like causes
If like effects have like causes and the universe is imperfect and limited (finite), what does this suggest about God?
How does this challenge the concept of the God of classical theism?

63. Fallacy of composition
Definition – Philosophical notion that whatever is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole.
E.g. Each brick in Aquinas College weighs 2.5 kg.  Therefore, Aquinas College as a whole weighs 2.5 kg.
Hume argued that one cannot move from saying that everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the universe as a whole has a cause.
“Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty.”

64. Fallacy of composition
British philosopher BERTRAND RUSSELL also made this point, arguing that to say every man has a mother is not proof that the human race has a mother.
“Obviously the human race hasn’t a mother, that’s a different logical sphere.” (Russell, Why I’m not a Christian).

65. Think – Pair - Share Do you agree with Hume’s criticisms?
What counter-arguments are there to Hume’s challenges?

66. Hume’s challenges to the cosmological argument
With your ‘elbow buddy’, take it in turns to explain Hume’s challenges to the cosmological argument.
Can you remember and explain all the challenges between you?
UNICEF
You have two minutes.
0:39
0:38
0:40
0:42
0:43
0:37
0:41
0:35
0:31
0:30
0:32
0:33
0:44
0:34
0:36
0:46
0:54
0:53
0:55
0:56
0:58
0:57
0:52
0:51
0:47
0:29
0:48
0:49
0:50
0:45
0:28
0:08
0:07
0:09
0:10
0:12
0:11
0:06
0:05
End
2:00
0:01
0:02
0:04
0:03
0:13
0:14
0:23
0:22
0:24
0:25
0:27
0:26
0:21
0:20
0:16
0:15
0:17
0:18
0:19
0:59
1:01
1:41
1:40
1:42
1:43
1:45
1:44
1:39
1:38
1:33
1:32
1:34
1:35
1:37
1:36
1:46
1:47
1:56
1:55
1:57
1:58
2:00
1:59
1:54
1:53
1:49
1:48
1:50
1:51
1:52
1:31
1:30
1:10
1:09
1:11
1:12
1:14
1:13
1:08
1:07
1:03
1:02
1:04
1:05
1:06
1:15
1:16
1:25
1:24
1:26
1:27
1:29
1:28
1:23
1:22
1:18
1:17
1:19
1:20
1:21
1:00

67. Learning check …
Know at least three of Hume’s challenges to the cosmological argument.
Understand further challenges to the argument – (these will come in useful for part b questions)

68. Challenges to the cosmological argument
We will now look at some further challenges to the cosmological argument.
On pages complete a short summary of the challenges from each philosopher as we learn about them.
Remember your note-taking skills – don’t copy the whole slide, summarise the key idea.
Before we begin, complete Hume by yourself.

69. Immanuel Kant 1724-1804 Book: Critique of Pure Reason
Cause and effect only applies in the realm of sense experiences. We know about the world around us because we experience it every day.
We have NOT experienced the creation of the universe.
Therefore it is nonsense to conclude that God caused the universe because he would be outside of space and time so we can have no sense experience of it.
For Kant then, trying to arrive at a conclusion about the beginning of the universe ‘has no meaning whatsoever’.

70. John Stuart Mill 1806-1873 Article: Theism
Agreed with Aquinas’ theory that everything around us has a cause.
HOWEVER, to then state that the cause of the universe (God) was then uncaused is a contradiction.
Surely it would make sense to ask, ‘what / who caused God?’.
“Our experience, instead of furnishing an argument for a first cause, is repugnant to it.”
Repugnant = contradictory, inconsistent

71. Bertrand Russell 1872-1970 Book: Why I’m not a Christian
Argued that the existence of the universe is ‘brute fact’. He said the universe “just is”.
If the universe “just is”, the question, ‘how did the universe get here?’ is removed, thus making the argument pointless!
He also agreed with Hume that the cosmological argument commits the fallacy of composition.
“Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is therefore that the human race has a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother – that’s a different logical sphere.”

72. Anthony Kenny
Born 1931
Book: The Five Ways: St Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God’s Existence.
Argues that progress in scientific understanding has uncovered flaws in Aquinas’ arguments.

73. Anthony Kenny’s Criticism
Kenny rejected Aquinas’ First Way.
Memory test – what is his First Way?
Kenny argued that Aquinas’ principle that nothing moves itself goes against the fact that people and animals move themselves.
He used Newton’s First Law of Motion (principle of inertia) to show how animals have the capacity to move themselves without being moved by another.

74. Newton’s First Law of Motion
An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force.
An object in motion continues to be in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Newton's First Law

75. Newton’s First Law of Motion
Newton’s First Law of Motion is sometimes called the law of inertia.
Inertia is the tendency of all objects to resist any change in motion.
Because of inertia, an object at rest will remain at rest until a force makes it move.
Likewise, inertia is the reason that a moving object stays in motion with the same velocity unless a force changes its speed or direction.

76. Examples of inertia Tablecloth trick. Why didn’t the cup fall over?
Inertia is the reason why a plane, car, or bicycle cannot stop immediately.
Car crash

77. Back to Kenny!
Therefore, argued Kenny, Newton’s First Law of Motion, in which movement can be explained by a body’s own inertia from a previous motion, disproves Aquinas’ argument.

78. Quote Kenny says that Newton’s First Law of Motion ...
“wrecks the argument of the First Way. For at any given time the rectilinear uniform motion of a body can be explained by the principle of inertia in terms of the body’s own previous motion without appeal to any other agent.”
Rectilinear = moving in a straight line. Uniform motion = travels equal distance in equal intervals – ie constant speed.

79. Learning check …
Know at least three of Hume’s challenges to the cosmological argument.
Understand further challenges to the argument – (these will come in useful for part b questions)

80. By the end of today’s lesson you will:
Have explored the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument.
Have evaluated whether the cosmological argument is an effective argument for God’s existence.
Skills Focus
- AO2 – Analysis and evaluation
- Specialist language and vocabulary

81. AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation
Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 1: Arguments for the existence of God
AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation
Whether inductive arguments for God’s existence are persuasive
The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing.
The effectiveness of the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence.
Whether cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence are persuasive in the 21st century.
The effectiveness of the challenges of the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence.
Whether scientific explanations are more persuasive than philosophical explanations for the universe’s existence.

82. Starter
You have two minutes to list strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument for the existence of God.
2 minutes

83. Strengths and Weaknesses
Complete pages in your workbooks.
Can you work out the weakness or counter- argument that could be used to challenge each point?

84. Strength
It satisfies the answer to the question: ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’

85. Weakness
Russell argues that the existence of the universe is a ‘brute fact’. He says, “I should say that the universe is just there and that is all.”
If the question ‘how did the universe begin?’ is removed the argument becomes pointless.

86. Counter-argument
It is surely just giving up on a great question. Copleston says, “If one refuses to even sit down at the chess board and make a move, one of course, cannot be checkmated.”

87. Strength
If ‘ex nihilo, nihilo fit’ (out of nothing, nothing comes), it is logical to conclude that there must be a necessary being because there is something rather than nothing! There must be a sufficient reason (see Leibniz) for this.

88. Weakness
Mill argues that it is contradictory to claim that everything has a cause, but that the cause for the universe (God) is uncaused. It is contradictory to say that the universe cannot be infinite, but God can.

89. Counter-argument
It fits in with the concept of the God of classical theism – the omnipotent creator God.
Phillips argues that it doesn’t fall foul of making God ‘too small’.

90. Strength
The Kalam argument is compatible with science – both argue that the universe had a beginning.

91. Weakness
The beginning of the universe was caused by the Big Bang.

92. Counter-argument God caused the Big Bang which caused the universe.
Ockham’s razor – God is the simplest explanation and therefore the most viable.

93. Strength
It is an a-posteriori argument based on our observation of motion, cause and effect, and contingency in the universe. Thus it can be supported by science.

94. Weakness
Hume and Russell argued that this is a fallacy of composition. Just because we observe cause and effect IN the universe, does not mean that the universe as a whole has a cause. Russell points out that just because every human has a mother, does not mean the whole of humanity has a mother.
Kant also claims that the idea of cause and effect only applies in the realm of sense experience. Seeing as God is outside of our sense experience, it is nonsense to suggest that God is the cause of our universe.

95. Strength
It is an ancient argument, having endured over years and has scientific support.

96. Weakness
The claims of Aquinas are based on medieval science and are no longer relevant.
E.g. Kenny claims that Newton’s First Law of Motion shows Aquinas’ First Way to be unsound.

97. Counter-argument
God could be the cause of the Law of Motion.

98. Strength
It uses rational philosophy to support its claims. For example, all the arguments reject the notion of infinite regression.

99. Weakness
Surely there could be an endless series of causes. Why is it deemed necessary to have a first cause?

100. Counter-argument
Mackie uses an analogy of a train whereby each carriage pulls along another carriage. He suggests that it sensible to presume that there is an engine – i.e. a mover / causer.
Craig and Miller’s kalam arguments show that the universe cannot be infinite. (Could explain how Craig uses an example of infinite library to reject actual infinites.)

101. Strength
It is logical to argue that there must be something necessary on which all contingent things rely (otherwise nothing would exist as nothing comes from nothing).

102. Weakness
Hume questions why the universe itself can’t be this necessary thing.
Hume also argues that it is illogical to claim that God is a necessary being because any being claimed to exist may or may not exist. It’s possible to say God does not exist, so he can’t be necessary!

103. Strength
Richard Swinburne and Basil Mitchell presented the cosmological argument as a part of the ‘cumulative case’ set of arguments.
On its own the cosmological argument may not prove God, but put together with other arguments (e.g. the teleological argument, ontological argument, religious experience etc), they form a strong proof for the existence of God.

104. Weakness
In his book God and Philosophy Anthony Flew argued “If one leaky bucket will not hold water there is no reason to think that ten can.”
In other words, lots of arguments with weaknesses do not make one strong argument – the weaknesses are still there!

105. Counter-argument
Swinburne responded to this stating, “For clearly if you jam ten leaky buckets together in such a way that holes in the bottom of each bucket are squashed close to solid parts of the bottoms of neighbouring buckets, you will get a container that will hold water.” (Existence of God).

106. Weakness
God of the gaps – Gaps in scientific knowledge (e.g. the cause of the Big Bang) are taken by theists to be evidence or proof of God’s existence.

107. Counter-argument
Ockham’s razor – The simplest explanation (God) is the best.

108. Weakness
There could be a plurality (many) causes for the existence of the universe, not just one.

109. Counter-argument
Would these causes be ‘necessary’ or how would they be brought about?
This one cause is extraordinary after all – God!
Swinburne says. ‘Theism is simpler than polytheism’.

110. Weakness
Hume argued that even if God is accepted as the cause of the universe, there is no way of determining that it is the God of classical theism.

111. Concluding thoughts
Read the ‘final thoughts’ from Davies, Swinburne and Hick (p37 of your workbook) and Vardy’s last paragraph.
Do you agree with their conclusion?

112. Learning check … By the end of today’s lesson you will:
Have explored the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument.
Have evaluated whether the cosmological argument is an effective argument for God’s existence.
Skills Focus
- AO2 – Analysis and evaluation
- Specialist language and vocabulary

113. How effective is the cosmological argument?
What does ‘effective’ mean?
How can you use the strengths and weaknesses from today’s lesson to evaluate how effective the cosmological argument is?

114. Remember to write a conclusion!
“The cosmological argument is an effective argument for God’s existence.” Evaluate this view [30]
PESEL
Point – Make a point/argument
Explain – Explain that point/argument
Support – Support the point using evidence, examples or reasoning. (Scholars are good to use here)
EVALUATE – Is the argument any good?
Link – Connect the paragraph to the question and to that which will follow.
Remember to write a conclusion!

115. Learning check … By the end of today’s lesson you will:
Have explored the strengths and weaknesses of the cosmological argument.
Have evaluated whether the cosmological argument is an effective argument for God’s existence.
Skills Focus
- AO2 – Analysis and evaluation
- Specialist language and vocabulary

116. AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation
Plenary
Can you use any of the strengths/weaknesses discussed in today’s lesson to respond to any of the other AO2 issues below?
AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation
Whether inductive arguments for God’s existence are persuasive
The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing.
The effectiveness of the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence.
Whether cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence are persuasive in the 21st century.
The effectiveness of the challenges of the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence.
Whether scientific explanations are more persuasive than philosophical explanations for the universe’s existence.