AS Cosmological Argument Evaluation

Cosmological evaluation

• ·         Ockham’s Razor
• ·         Cannot prove the existence of God
• ·         Does not say anything about the nature of God
• ·         One block but not convincing to an atheist
• ·         Suggests maybe but not definitely.
• ·         Swinburne ‘it is extraordinary that there should exist anything at all’
• ·         Hume ‘we can never ascribe to the cause any qualities but what are exactly sufficient to produce the effect ‘ ie the conclusion is not logical from the premises. This is the problem with inductive argument
•  
• Part (b) to the 2001 question how far do the weaknesses outweigh the strengths of this argument?
• ·         Not all inductive arguments are weak they are neatly logical and appeal to us on that basis but in this case to conclude that God is the cause is a leap too far.
• ·         Regardless of the strengths or weaknesses this argument neither proves nor disproves God’s existence. All it can do is provide credible justification - as William of Ockham might have said, God is the simplest and most credible first cause, more so than any other suggestion.
• ·         Thus all this argument can do is provide the believer with additional reasons why he might believe God exists but it will never convince a non-believer.