Cosmological arguments

• The Kalam argument (an argument from temporal causation)

  P1: Everything with a beginning must have a cause.

  P2: The universe has a beginning.

  C1: Therefore the universe must have a cause.

  C2: The cause of the universe must be a personal cause, and this is God.
• Aquinas' 1st Way (argument from motion)


  P1: There are some things in motion or a state of change.

  P2: Nothing can move itself.

  P3: Imagine everything was changed or moved by something else - then there would be an infinite regress of movers.

  P4: Reductio ad absurdum - If P2 were true then there would be no prime mover and hence no subsequent movers, but this is false.

  C: Therefore there must be an unmoved prime mover whom we call God.
• Aquinas' 2nd Way (argument from atemporal causation)


  P1: There is an order of efficient causes. (Every event has a cause)

  P2: Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.

  P3: Imagine this order of efficient causes goes on infinitely - then there would be no first cause among efficient causes.

  P4: Reductio ad absurdum - if P3 were true then there would be no subsequent efficient causes, but this is false.

  C: There must be a first efficient cause and this we call God.
• Aquinas' 3rd Way (argument from contingency)


  1. P1: Things in the world are contingent

  2. P2: If everything was contingent, then it is possible that there was a time when everything had passed out of existence and there was nothing

  3. P3: If there once was nothing, then there would be nothing now, but this is false

  4. C1: Therefore not everything is contingent and there is at least one thing that is necessary

  5. P4: Everything that is necessary has the cause of necessity in or outside of itself

  6. P5: Imagine every necessary being has the cause of necessity outside of itself

  7. P6: Reductio ad absurdum - if P5 were true then there would be no ultimate cause of necessity

  8. C2: There must exist a necessary being which causes and sustains all other necessary beings - God
• Descartes' argument based on his continuing existence (an argument from causation)


  1. P1: The cause of my existence as a thinking thing could be: myself; I have always existed; my parent; a being less than God; or God.

  2. P2: I cannot have caused myself to exist for then I would have created myself perfect. Nor can I sustain myself in existence, for then I would be God.

  3. P3: Neither have I always existed, for then I would be aware of this.

  4. P4: My parents may be the cause of my physical existence, but they cannot explain me as thinking mind - nor do they sustain me each moment.

  5. P5: I cannot be created by a being less than God as I have the idea of God inside of me and the cause must be sufficiently powerful to create the effect.

  6. C: Therefore only God could have created me.
• Leibniz's argument from the principle of sufficient reason (an argument from contingency)


  P1: No fact can ever be true or existent unless there is a sufficient reason why things are as they are and not otherwise. (PSR)

  P2: Contingent facts exist.

  P3: Contingent facts can only be partially explained in terms of other contingent facts.
• Leibniz's argument part 2


  C1: The whole series of contingent facts cannot be sufficiently explained by any contingent fact within that series.

  C2: The sufficient reason for all contingent facts and for the series of facts must lie outside of the series of contingent facts.

  C3: The ultimate reason for facts must be in a necessary substance which we call God.
• The possibility of an infinite series

  • Many cosmological arguments rely on the idea that an infinite series is impossible.
  • George Cantor's concept of transfinite helps explain the paradox in Al-Ghazali's argument.
  • The Big Crunch hypothesis suggests that the universe could collapse in on itself before another big bang infinitely.
  • Some philosophers have also argued that an infinite chain of causes is a logical possibility.
• Hume's objection to the causal principle

  • The causal principle is the idea that every event has a cause.
  • Cosmological arguments from causation rely on this idea.
  • Hume argues that we cannot observe causation, what we deem causation is our experience of constant conjunction.
  • We cannot assume that constant conjunction means one event will cause another in the same way in the future.
  • Therefore we cannot know that every event has a cause.
• The arguments commit the fallacy of composition (Russell)

  • The fallacy of composition means thinking that because there is some property common to each part of the group, this property must apply to the group as a whole.
  • Russell gave the example that every human has a mother but the human race as a whole does not have a mother.
  • Cosmological arguments assume that because every event in the universe has a cause, the universe itself must have a cause.
  • This reasoning is clearly fallacious.
• The impossibility of a necessary being (Hume)


  P1: Nothing that is distinctly conceivable entails a contradiction.

  P2: For any being that we can conceive of as existent, we can also conceive of that being as non-existent.

  C: Therefore there is no being whose non-existence entails a contradiction.
• The impossibility of a necessary being (Russell)


  P1: The concept of 'necessary' can only be applied to propositions, and in particular to propositions that are analytic.

  P2: An analytic proposition is one that it is self-contradictory to deny.

  P3: It is not self-contradictory to say 'God does not exist',

  C: Therefore 'God exists' is not analytic and is not a necessary proposition.