In Aquinas’ third way it states that all natural things have contingent existence, implying that if a thing can cease to be, then sooner or later it will cease to be. Therefore, every natural thing would have ceased to exist by now because once everything disappears, there is no way for it to come back into being on its own. Hence there must be something which has necessary existence, which can endure when other things cease, and so bring them back into existence. Clearly something has kept natural things in existence, because they obviously exist now.
Consequently, Copleston concluded that everything within the universe must be contingent, the universe being the sum total of all things contingent. The universe must depend upon something to endure existence; nothing within our universe can be the cause of this existence so the cause must be external to our universe. This must be what we know to be God. Therefore God is ‘de re necessary’ and exists independently of everything else.
Bertrand Russell argues frankly on the contrary to Coplston, stating, like Hume, that there should be no reason to assume that because we live within a cause effect universe, that forces beyond the universe should operate likewise. ‘I should say that the universe is just there, and that is all.’ Russell argues ignorantly that his universe exists entirely without reason. It is a mere ‘brute fact.’ Copleston went forth to argue that ‘If one refuses to sit at the chess board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated.” This implies that if the game of life was never instigated then it would be impossible for the players to be played with.
This is supported by the big bang and the second law of thermodynamics revealing that space, time, matter, and energy had a beginning. Therefore, the universe had a beginning. I see no difficulty with a Being that exists outside of time, causing effects in time, just as concepts like pain can cause material effects like tears. However, if one agrees with Russell that part of the universe is totally independent, then the dependent parts of the universe would depend upon the independent part of the universe for their existence.
Theologically, the universe displays remarkable similarities with what we know to be products of intelligent design. The design, order, and conditions for life found in the universe are better explained by the theistic hypothesis. It does not bear a resemblance to what we know to be products of random, mindless causes making the design in the universe probable. Therefore, the design argument shows theism to be more probable than atheism. Demonstrating that Copleston’s argument is of greater viability to Russell’s.