1. ‘Assess the credibility of the cosmological argument’ (12 marks)
Clarify the Key Ideas
A’posteriori
The key crux
Family of arguments
Outline Opinion
Weaknesses are too significant.
Idea
Hume – exception
Hume – explanations outside
Argument Against
Liebniz SR
Counter Argument
Russell – it just is.
Russell – FC
Conclusion
Unsafe assumptions.

2. ‘Assess the credibility 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 key concepts of the argument are fundamentally flawed and therefore fail to find it a convincing argument.
The argument is based upon the observation, made by Aquinas and others that everything that exists has a cause, except for a first uncaused necessary being. This is a huge contradiction and Hume also pointed out that if we were going to make exceptions to the rule that ‘everything needs a cause’, then why can’t the universe be the exception? Furthermore, Hume suggests that seeking explanations beyond the physical universe will lead to an infinite regress of explanations. So perhaps we would do better to stop our search for explanation with the universe. Either accept it has no explanation, or find an explanation for the universe that lies within the universe itself.
Some however do find the argument convincing, for example Leibniz argued that even if the universe had always been in existence it would still require an explanation, or a sufficient reason for its existence, because we need to establish why there is something rather than nothing. If we were to go backwards in time forever we will never arrive at such a complete explanation. Leibniz identified that even if we are sure that the universe has always existed, there is nothing within the universe to show why it exists: it is not self-explanatory, so the reason for its existence must lie outside of itself. Leibniz and other scholars have concluded that the reason why the universe exists is as an expression of God’s love.
The need for an explanation is still unconvincing as explained by Russell, it just is. Russell, following Hume, contends that since we derive the concept of cause from our observation of particular things, we cannot ask about the cause of something like the universe that we cannot experience. The universe is “just there, and that's all”. Russell also spoke of the ‘Fallacy of Composition’, that is to make conclusions about the whole based on observation of the parts. In other words, Russell believed that it was a mistake to say that just because we have observed that parts of the universe are contingent and require a cause, that the universe itself must also be contingent and require a cause.
In conclusion, I find the cosmological argument to be fraught with contradiction and unsafe assumption and therefore conclude that it is ultimately unconvincing.