The Basics of Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument is a collection of arguments that suggest the existence of God from the fact that the universe exists.
Thomas Aquinas was a prominent theologian who put forward five ways (Quinque viae) to demonstrate the existence of God, three of which can be classified as ‘cosmological’ in nature.
The Cosmological Argument is an a posteriori, dependant on observation and experience, to show it is likely that God is the entity that caused the universe to exist.

Types of Cosmological Argument

The Argument from Contingency, which asserts that, since everything that exists (or has ever existed) could possibly not exist, there must be something that must exist – this something is what we call God.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, which argues that everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe had a cause which is God.
The Argument from Sufficient Reason, also from Aquinas, argues that everything must have a sufficient reason to exist or occur, and God is the ultimate adequate explanation for all existence.

David Hume challenged the Argument from Contingency by suggesting infinite regress. Who caused God? If everything has a cause then what caused God, and what caused the first cause of God, and so on infinitely backwards. He also argued that we have no experience of universe-making to be able to make claims about the cause of the universe.
Kant critiqued the argument stating that the concept of cause and effect cannot be applied outside our familiar word, certainly not to the universe.
Richard Dawkins, a proponent of scientific atheism, holds that the existence of a complex universe does not necessitate a creator.
Most modern scientists, cosmologists and physicists argue for a self-contained, uncaused universe, citing theories like quantum mechanics and the multiverse theory.

The strength of the Cosmological Argument relies on its simple logic and adherence to empiricism. It uses everyday experiences’ concept of cause and effect and is intuitively appealing.
However, the Cosmological Argument has been widely criticised due to its basis in metaphysical speculation and for making grand claims about the nature of reality based on limited human perception and understanding. The argument is also challenged for its leap of faith from ‘cause’ to God.