HOW SUCCESSFUL IS THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF
GOD ? (25 marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Unsuccessful
CR: Makes unjustified causation assumptions, (e.g. assuming the causal principle)
INTRO: The Cosmological argument is an argument for God’s existence, based on the law
of causation and the impossibility of an infinite chain of events. Philosophers like Aquinas
and Descartes base their arguments on causation, while others, like Leibniz, argue from the
contingency of the universe. However, all versions face significant objections, such as the
possibility of an infinite series, problems with the causal principle, and the impossibility of a
necessary being. Therefore, I would argue that the cosmological argument is ultimately
unsuccessful. The crucial reason is that it makes several causation assumptions without
sufficient justification, including the assumption that everything must have a cause, or that an
infinite regress is impossible, both of which can be reasonably challenged.
PARA 1 - AQUINAS 1 (MOTION):
P) (Explain Motion, Potentiality, and Actuality) + Outline Argument inc. Aristotle & Islamic
influences
A) Mackie: Infinite Series Objection (Aquinas confuses a long chain with an infinite one)
C) Kalam Argument (Infinite Series is not possible)
R) George Cantor’s Set Theory (Actual infinity is possible) + Quantum Physics (not
everything that begins to exist has a cause)
E) Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument from Motion fails, because it assumes that an infinite
chain of events is impossible
PARA 2 - DESCARTES (CAUSATION):
P) Outline Argument
A) Assumes Metaphysical Principle of Causation (no empirical evidence)
A) Assumes Causal Principle (and Sustaining Causes)
A) Empiricist Account for Concept of God (Locke and Hume)
E) Descartes’ Cosmological Argument fails due to Causation Assumptions
PARA 3 - LEIBNIZ (CONTINGENCY):
P) Outline Argument (inc. Principle of Sufficient Reason)
A) Fallacy of Composition
A) Hume’s Fork against Principle of Sufficient Reason (Brute Facts Exist - Universe)
A) Impossibility of a Necessary Being
C) Descartes and Malcolm: God’s Necessary Existence is part of his Concept
R) Matter/Energy could be Necessary instead
E) Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument is weak
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Cosmological argument is not successful in proving the
existence of God. Although it provides an intuitive appeal to causation and explanation, it is
GOD ? (25 marks)
(pink = out of spec content)
LOA: Unsuccessful
CR: Makes unjustified causation assumptions, (e.g. assuming the causal principle)
INTRO: The Cosmological argument is an argument for God’s existence, based on the law
of causation and the impossibility of an infinite chain of events. Philosophers like Aquinas
and Descartes base their arguments on causation, while others, like Leibniz, argue from the
contingency of the universe. However, all versions face significant objections, such as the
possibility of an infinite series, problems with the causal principle, and the impossibility of a
necessary being. Therefore, I would argue that the cosmological argument is ultimately
unsuccessful. The crucial reason is that it makes several causation assumptions without
sufficient justification, including the assumption that everything must have a cause, or that an
infinite regress is impossible, both of which can be reasonably challenged.
PARA 1 - AQUINAS 1 (MOTION):
P) (Explain Motion, Potentiality, and Actuality) + Outline Argument inc. Aristotle & Islamic
influences
A) Mackie: Infinite Series Objection (Aquinas confuses a long chain with an infinite one)
C) Kalam Argument (Infinite Series is not possible)
R) George Cantor’s Set Theory (Actual infinity is possible) + Quantum Physics (not
everything that begins to exist has a cause)
E) Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument from Motion fails, because it assumes that an infinite
chain of events is impossible
PARA 2 - DESCARTES (CAUSATION):
P) Outline Argument
A) Assumes Metaphysical Principle of Causation (no empirical evidence)
A) Assumes Causal Principle (and Sustaining Causes)
A) Empiricist Account for Concept of God (Locke and Hume)
E) Descartes’ Cosmological Argument fails due to Causation Assumptions
PARA 3 - LEIBNIZ (CONTINGENCY):
P) Outline Argument (inc. Principle of Sufficient Reason)
A) Fallacy of Composition
A) Hume’s Fork against Principle of Sufficient Reason (Brute Facts Exist - Universe)
A) Impossibility of a Necessary Being
C) Descartes and Malcolm: God’s Necessary Existence is part of his Concept
R) Matter/Energy could be Necessary instead
E) Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument is weak
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Cosmological argument is not successful in proving the
existence of God. Although it provides an intuitive appeal to causation and explanation, it is
