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
- 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.
- 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
- 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