Richard Swinburne is in favour of the probability argument. The existence of the universe puzzles everyone, however the hypothesis and belief of God brings reason and an easily understandable answer to the most challenged question. If we question the director or the creator of our universe its easy enough to put the answer to the question, that god is the creator. Swinburne argues that to believe in God is a much easier explanation to the universe rather than suggesting it is uncaused because you are then still left with doubt and wonder. The belief that god created our universe solves many unanswered questions; to were the universe came from. Things such as miracles and religious experience are explained by the belief of God, as it seems easier to trust this was the result of God, rather than believe ‘it just happened’.
Another arguer for the cosmological argument is Kalam, he argues the favour for the beginning, in the universe everything must have a cause, something that is so complex as the world we live in and the universe around us, everything that exists must have a cause, he argues that the planet cannot just be it has to have something or someone to direct it. Also take the example of an aeroplane, it’s to complex and designed just to be there by it self the plan cannot just be. If we take the example of the plane and compare it to the universe and see how complicated they both are we can understand that, there must be a causer or director for the Universe, as again, it can not just be. Overall its what your belief is and how you see each argument to see which one you’d agree and go along with.
The main strengths of the argument are that, there is a first cause something has to be started off by someone else, if simple questions can be answered like, ‘How did the lift go up’ – because of the electric system that enables it to moves, this means the universe could be caused by someone, this is God. It is also strengthened with the fact that there is something rather then nothing we have experience of the universe so we can see how complex it really is, so no one can deny that is nothing, there is actually something. This leads us to the belief in God. Lastly another strength of the cosmological argument, is that its simple and easy to understand. We can all see that the universe is, but still all the questions that are asked ‘why it is?’ an easy explanation for this is a belief in God.
ii) ‘Comment on the view that the strengths and weaknesses are equally balanced’
Although there are some, criticisms of the cosmological argument. Swinburne also argues that the natural state of things could be one of change, for example it is just natural for a leaf to photosynthesis and not need a director. For example, the argument of dependency, that every thing has been caused, means that the argument against it asks ‘what caused God? This then becomes a weakness because then the questions become harder to answer, ‘were did god come from?’ ‘Who caused god?’ This then leads to questions being unanswered. Also Occam’s razor is a main weakness of the cosmological argument as he believes that ‘We should not multiply causes beyond necessity’ so we should go for the simplest answer. Then argument is attacked by, the question ‘If everything requires a cause, why doesn’t God require a cause?’ If we can’t say the universe ‘just is’ than why can we say god is? This would mean that a list of causers would go on forever and not answer anything rather than believing that nothing needs a causer, therefore ruling out God. By suggesting that the creator is god, carries out more questions like ‘what purpose was the universe created for?’ If god, is believed to be omnipotent, benevolent, and omniscient, if it was created so god could carry out all of these, looking at the world it’s hard to believe.
The cosmological argument is balanced out with for and against arguments, because for every argument in favour for the cosmological argument, there is an argument against it. For example the argument of dependency has been caused, means the argument that is going against it is ‘what caused god?’ The most strengthened argument, which is easiest to understand, is to believe in something rather than nothing. However Occam’s razor replies to this bus saying it is easier to believe in the simplest explanation that the universe just is.
In conclusion the arguments for and against are both balanced as for every strength, there is a weakness. In my opinion you cannot decide which argument to go for because whatever strength there is to the argument there is a weakness to back it up, or no evidence to make it enough to be able to believe. This could even try to change the opinion of someone trying to be convinced, therefore the arguments are overall balanced but with not enough evidence to be sufficient.
