1. Assess the weaknesses of the cosmological argument. (12 marks)
The Cosmological Argument is an a’posteriori argument meaning that it is based on empirical experience and observation. The argument is inductive which means that it uses premises to reach a conclusion and, if the premises are true, then so too will be the conclusion. The key crux of the argument is that existence of the universe stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God. The cosmological argument is a type or family of arguments rather than a single one, but all the variants are based on the seemingly unobjectionable observation that everything that exists is caused by something else. I believe that the weaknesses of the argument are too overwhelming for it to be convincing. One of the main concepts of the argument is that the universe must be contingent because all the things in it are. Russell disagreed with this and said that the move from the contingency of the components of the universe to the contingency of the universe commits the Fallacy of Composition. This is when we assume that something is true of the whole on the grounds that it is true of the parts. Russell said that we cannot assume cause in things, such as the universe that we have no experience of. Additionally, Hume argued that seeking explanations beyond the physical universe will lead to an infinite regress of explanations. He believed we would do better to stop our search for explanation with the universe and either accept it has no explanation, or find an explanation for it that lies within itself. On the other hand, defenders of the argument would say that, despite Russell’s criticisms, it remains logical that something cannot simply come from nothing. These supporters would point to the large amount of empirical evidence of contingent beings and assert that there needs to be a necessary being who is the source of their existence. Furthermore, some scholars would argue that Hume has misunderstood the nature of God as, because he is a necessary being, he would be able to offer a complete explanation for the universe and therefore avoid the infinite regress of causes that he warns of. I remain unconvinced by such support as I agree with Russell that the term necessary only applies to analytical statements and tautologies and so any talk of a ‘necessary being’ is nonsense. Furthermore, in relation to the challenge that it is both logical and empirically verifiable that everything must have a cause, scientists have now discovered particles in space that seemingly go in and out of existence without any apparent cause. In conclusion, I find the weaknesses of the argument to significant to overcome as its basic precepts seem to be based on assumptions that are not universally shared.

2. Assess the weaknesses of the cosmological argument. (12 marks)
Clarify the Key Ideas
A’posteriori
The key crux
Family of arguments
Outline Opinion
Weaknesses too significant
Idea
Russell – FC
Hume – explanations outside
Argument Against
Something from nothing
Complete explanation
Counter Argument
Russell – necessary being nonsense
Particles in space
Conclusion
Weaknesses overwhelming