Responses to the Cosmological Argument (A Level)

Question 1

Russell

Answer 1

• Just because most things that exist can be explained does not mean that the universe can also - “just because you have a mother does not mean the universe has a mother”
• The existence of the universe is a “brute fact” so does not not need to have a cause/origin, or even an explanation
• A necessary being is not required, as things can exist independently. We don’t need to explain the existence of things through causes, and perhaps not everything can have a cause
• It is only probable that most things in existence are caused, but we cannot apply this idea to all things. Some things in science appear to have no cause, e.g. quantum transitions in atoms

Question 2

Hume

Answer 2

• Like Russell, Hume argued that just because everything in the universe has a cause, does not mean that the universe itself has to have a cause
  We have no empirical evidence for the universe being made, so cannot speak about in creation or presume it is caused just because everything else has a cause
• Hume suggested that the universe may be a necessary being. This logic comes from Occam’s Razor - the conclusion is most likely if it requires fewer assumptions. This is to say, the universe could be necessarily existent rather than contingent upon an unseen, necessarily-existent being

Question 3

Kenny

Answer 3

Kenny rejects Aquinas’ idea that nothing moves by itself (Argument from Motion) by using Newton’s First Law of Motion. It is possible that an object can be either stationary or in motion without any force being exerted on it, suggesting a Prime Mover is not required for motion