Cosmological argument

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Maisie97
  • Created on: 13-05-15 19:01


The first way was argued that god is the unmoved mover:

1. everything is in constant motion

2. this motion must have been started by something

3. infinate regression is impossible so there must be a mover at the start - god

The second wat was argued that god is the uncaused cause:

1. everything is caused by something else, if something caused itself it would have to exist before itself in order to cause itself

2. infinate regression is impossible because every effect needs a first cause so there must be a cause that starts causes every other thing to exist

3. the first cause must be uncaused in order to begin a chain of effects - god

The third way was argued that god exists because of the idea of contingency:

1. everything is contingent on something else

2. infinate regression is impossible so these must be a necessary being at the start

3. this being is god

1 of 3

Copleston v Russel.


Aruged that everything in the universe only exists because something else caused it

But, we cant see this cause - has to be outside of the universe

Infinate regression is impossible so there must be a cause


Brute fact - a statement which reuires no further questioning

I dont think you can prove that god exists just say the universe exists and thats it


you are like a chessplayer who refuses to sit down at the chessboard for fear of being cheakmated

2 of 3


Fallacy of composition means a mistakenly puts things together which dont fit - you cant say that because some things in the universe are contingent the whole universe is

You cant say god is the cause in the same way a pusher causes dominoes to fall - physical causes are completly different

3 of 3


No comments have yet been made

Similar All resources:

See all All resources »See all Cosmological resources »