This document outlines the cosmological argument and various philosophical perspectives on it. The cosmological argument proposes that the universe must have an explanation for its existence, and that God provides the best explanation as something that requires no further explanation. Thinkers like Aquinas, Leibniz, and Copleston proposed versions of the argument. More recently, the Kalam cosmological argument posits that the universe could not be past eternal and therefore requires a cause. The document also discusses strengths like its logical coherence, and weaknesses such as whether the first premise that the universe requires an explanation can be assumed. It concludes by mentioning skeptical philosophies of Hume and Kant regarding causality and the limits of human knowledge.

1. THE
COSMOLOGICAL
ARGUMENT
PLAN

2. SECTION 1

3.  Cosmos = universe
 Aposteriori, inductive.
INTRO

4. KEY IDEAS
 Must accept universe is intelligible
 Must question universe
 God is supreme and requires no explanation, the universe
does.

5. AQUINAS – WAY 1, 2 & 3
 Motion = first mover
 Cause = first cause
 Contingency = creator.

6. LEIBNIZ
 Principle of sufficient reason
 “Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason”
 Known / unknown explanation for everything.

7. COPLESTON
 Some things in the world do not contain within themselves
the reason for their own existence
 The explanation is separate and outside of the world
 This is God.

8. KALAM / W. L. CRAIG
 Muslim scholars, 9th century
 WLC: “The Kalam Cosmological Argument
 Present cannot exist in an infinite universe.

9. SECTION 2

10. S - SCIENCE HAS NO
ALTERNATIVE
 Science has not yet discovered an alternative explanation.
 We live in a scientifically developed age…

11. S - LOGICAL AND
COHERENT
 Each step builds in the previous
 It is possible to either agree or disagree, not both.

12. S - RELATABLE
 We all experience the universe.

13. S - ANY / NO RELIGION
 The Kalam Argument proves this
 This makes it even more relatable.

14. W – FIRST PREMISE
FAILS
 If you don’t question the universe.
 Bertrand Russell – “Ultimate Brute Fact,” “Just there, and
that’s all,” C/R debate

15. W – NON-BELIEVERS?
 The argument raises more questions
 It is logically flawed and contradictory.

16. W – BBT COULD BE
WRONG
 It is only a theory
 The entire argument would then be wrong
 Oscillating universe.

17. W – DAVID HUME & I.
KANT
 Hume – we never experience causation, it is an illusion
born out of habit
 We cannot speculate about what we have never
experienced
 Kant – We cannot transcend the bounds of our
experience.