Click on a Philosopher to read their views and then rank them according to how convincing you think they are.
Click on a Philosopher to read their views and then rank them according to how convincing you think they are.
The cosmological argument – Page 2
Hawking
Hume
Hawking
The ‘Big Bang’ theory does not require God as a cause.
There are limits as to what God could create.
The ‘Big Bang’ may have happened spontaneously, like atomic particles in a vacuum.
Hume
Because events in the universe have a cause does not mean that the universe as a whole has a cause (Fallacy of composition)
We cannot know that every event must have a cause
The links between cause and effect are beyond our experience and therefore unknowable
The idea of a factually necessary being cannot be demonstrated
We have no experience of how worlds are made so we cannot know how this world came into being
God is not the only possible explanation. Infinite regression is also possible
If everything has a cause then God must have a cause
The cosmological argument is based on assumptions about God
Russell
The whole universe does not have an explanation because it cannot be related to any other things
To look for an extra cause for the world – which cannot be observed or compared – is meaningless
The universe ‘just is” and has no explanation nor requires one
Fallacy of composition – since the parts have a certain property (eg. causes), then it is mistaken to conclude that the whole likewise has that property
If atoms can appear out of nothing, so can the universe