1. Fredrick Copleston, a professor of history and philosophy, was a supporter of the Cosmological argument and reformulated the argument with particular focus on Aquinas’ argument of contingency. He proposed his argument in 1947 on a BBC radio debate with Bertrand Russell, and argued that: There are things in the universe which are contingent, they might have not existed. E.g. you would have not existed if your parents had not met. All things in the world are like this, nothing in the world is self explanatory, and everything depends on something else for its existence. Therefore, there must be a cause of everything in the universe which is outside of it. This cause must be a self-explanatory being i.e. one which contains within itself the reason for its own existence – a necessary being. This necessary being is God.

2. Conclusion- Copleston: Prof. Copleston argues that we observe a series of causes and effects. This series of contingent events makes up the world that we understand and observe. He believes that it is legitimate to wonder where this world of contingent events has come from. He does not accept that the cause of the world can be found within the world itself – there must be a self-sufficient cause outside of the world to be its cause. This self-sufficient cause, he argues is God. His line of argument and reasoning puts him firmly in the supporting corner of the Cosmological argument.

3. J.L Mackie defended Aquinas’ argument that there must be a prime mover, who himself is unmoved. Mackie offered an analogy of a train carriage. He argues that there can be an infinite number of carriages, each of which may move the next one, but it only makes sense if there is a railway engine. Just as Aquinas would state that there is an infinite number of objects moving from potentiality to actuality it only makes sense if there is a prime mover who starts the process, just like the railway engine.

4. A more modern form of the Cosmological argument, postulated by Leibniz (1646-1716). It looks at the argument from a slightly different angle and talks about reasons. Leibniz argued that everything that happens has a reason, i.e. there is some explanation, known or unknown for things. The world does not contain within itself the reason for its existence. The reason for its existence must therefore be God.