• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Discussion of the validity of the Cosmological argument and Russell's arguments against it.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Tom Smolen Discussion of the validity of the Cosmological argument and Russell's arguments against it. Bertrand Russell argues against both of the Cosmological arguments put forward by Aquinas and Copleston. The first (the argument of the first cause), states that the universe is a series of causes going back to a first cause (God). The argument begins by saying that everything has a cause. This contradicts the argument straight away, because God is supposedly something that does not have a cause. So the first step is that everything except God has a cause. Bertrand Russell argues that, if something like God can exist without a cause, then why must the Universe necessarily have a cause. ...read more.

Middle

The first point suggests that something came from nothing at some point, which seems like an impossibility. The second possibility suggests that time is infinite, and, as Aristotle argued, if there was an infinite amount of time before the present, then we would never reach the present. Although the two alternatives to the first Cosmological arguments have faults, I find them as conceivable as the possibility of an entity that exists outside of existence that began Universe and existence itself. Bertrand Russell's argument against Copleston's view on the Cosmological argument was put forward in the live 1948 Radio 4 debate between the two. However, the argument goes on until the two fundamental views of each person become apparent. ...read more.

Conclusion

Once their views on this matter were made apparent, the argument cannot continue, Although I support Russell's view that it is as likely that the universe caused itself, as it is that God caused itself, I disagree, as does Copleston, with his point that there are some things is the world that are not caused by anything. I cannot think of any event, or object in this world, that does not have a cause. Even if its cause is merely the atmospheric conditions in that place and time, or the presence of an certain chemical, or the instability of that substance in itself. Basically, whether or not you accept the Cosmological argument depends on whether or not you are willing to except the view that the Universe has a reason for existing. If you do not accept this view (like Bertrand Russel), then the Cosmological cannot stand. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Explain the Copplestone-Russell Radio Debate

    Russell argued that the term necessary is only applicable to analytic truths; this means statements such as 'all bachelors are male' and this statement is referred to as necessary de dicto.

  2. Assess whether the cosmological argument proves the existence of God.

    a contradiction, and as Hume and Kant highlighted There can only be necessary propositions such as bachelors are unmarried men, because if we were to deny it and say that for example bachelors are married men, then we would be committing a contradiction.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work