1. Assess the strengths 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 strengths of the argument are convincing and therefore make it a credible argument. The most significant strength of the argument is that it is based on empirical evidence, namely the verifiable observation that something cannot come from nothing. As everything in the universe is contingent, it therefore makes sense that there would be a necessary being, ie God that would enable the existence of all contingent beings. An additional strength is that the cosmological argument provide a complete explanation for the universe. Liebniz refers to this as the Principle of Sufficient Reason. A complete explanation is one that can avoid an infinite regress as it contains all the information required. Supporters of the cosmological argument view the idea of a necessary God creating the universe as a complete explanation as no further cause is required. There are those who would criticise the argument though; one of the key ideas of the argument is the idea that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. This may not be necessarily true as scientists have now discovered particles in space that seemingly go in and out of existence without any apparent cause. Additionally, the idea that a complete explanation is required is not a universally held view; Russell challenged this idea when he said that the existence of the universe was just a ‘brute fact’ and that we should stop looking for explanations for it as there were none to be found. In defence of the argument, it could be asserted that the most that science can tell us about these seemingly necessary particles is that no cause for their existence has been found YET, this is very different for no cause existing at all. Furthermore, Russell’s approach was criticised as being dogmatic by Copleston who thought that we should at least look for a cause for the universe rather than accepting from the start that one does not exist. In conclusion, I believe that the strengths of the argument are convincing enough to outweigh the weaknesses and so find it a credible argument for the existence of God.

2. Assess the strengths of the cosmological argument. (12 marks)
Clarify the Key Ideas
A’posteriori
The key crux
Family of arguments
Outline Opinion
Strengths are convincing
Idea
Something cannot come from nothing
Liebniz SR
Argument Against
Particles
Russell – brute fact
Counter Argument
Particles – no cause found yet
Copleston – should at least look
Conclusion