Full marks OCR a level religious studies answer.
Hi, here’s my full mark cosmological question essay if anyone wants to see how to form their answers 
To what extent is the cosmological argument a sufficient explanation for the existence of God?
The existence of God has been a long-debated focus of topic for many theologians and philosophers, and many have presented their own arguments as a way of contributing ot this debate. A key argument which attempts to sufficiently explain the existence of the universe is the Aquinas first three ways, also known as the cosmological argument. While the cosmological argument seems to have a number of successes and seems to prove the existence of God, the question remains on whether this is an entirely successful and valid argument when held up against the criticisms of logical fallacies.
The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which seeks to prove the existence of God. The argument was formulated by Aquinas and seeks to prove God through the observation of cause and effect in the universe. The first aspect of this argument is the argument through motion. This presents the view that in the universe we can observe the motion of objects. Aquinas suggests that beings which lack intelligence cannot guide themselves towards an end because they do not have the mental capacity to do so. This means that something else, an intelligent being, must guide them towards their end. Aquinas uses the example of an archer to make this point, while an arrow hits a target, it is an archer who aims and fires- the arrow reaches its end, but not without the guidance of an intelligent being. It is claimed that this process can be observed through the natural world itself, and is grounded in views of other philosophers- such as Aristotle, a key empiricist who valued the importance of observation, Aristotle claimed that the stick cannot move the rock without the hand moving the stick- the basis of all
motion is an intelligent being. However, it can also be seen that the value of empiricism is not upheld throughout the entire argument, whilst ti begins with cause and effect in the universe , it ends beyond what humans can verify- there is no way for us to test if God is moving us or impacting our world.
The second form of the cosmological argument comes about from the argument of causation, this uses observation of cause and effect to once again conclude that God must exist and is the only sufficient explanation. All objects are caused to exist by something else- for example, a human does not cause itself but is caused by the actions of its parents. All beings are dependent on something else to come into existence, it is illogical to suggest that a being can cause itself without suggesting that the same being must predate itself, this is a logical impossibility. While this seems to suggest that this process of cause and effect is infinite, it has no set beginning and no set end, this leads to another issue, the problem of infinites. It can not be definitively concluded that an infinite exists, because this can not be verified. If we were to accept infinite causes this would allow for no creation and no current day continuation, because there cannot be additition to an infinite. This leads to the conclusion that there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause or an unmoved mover. This being moves everything else, and set of the chain of cause and efect- this ties closely into Aristotle's explanation of how beings move from products of potentiality to actuality. The purpose of al objects is to reach their final telos, for humans this is fulfilling their purpose. However, while Aristotle concludes that this uncaused cause si the Prime-Mover, Aquinas claims this being is the Christian God. However- this argument does not prove that this is the only sufficient explanation, God is not the only explanation for the universe and other challenges can be made- such as the first cause being a scientific event, the Big Bang.
The third form of the cosmological argument is the argument from contingency. This is the view that al beings are contingent- it is possible for everything not to exist, which means, at some point in history- nothing existed. Considering that everything exists now, there must have been something ot begin creation. This view is critical to proving the existence of God as within God's definition is existence- God is the only con-contingent being and did not have to be caused into existence, God is necessary- he is perfection which means he always has and always will have existence.
However, these viewpoints are not without criticism and may not always be considered a sufficent explanation for Gods existence, this is because a number of key criticisms can be applied. Hume is a notable critic of the cosmological argument and provides a number of claims which he believes refute the idea that Aquinas argument is a sufficient reason of explaining that God exists. One of Hume's criticisms is the fallacy of composition- Aquinas is looking at parts of a process and concluding that this is applicable to everything, just because we can observe cause and effect, this does not necesarily mean that the entire universe displays cause and effect and is dependent on this for being. One example of this view is the suggestion that because every human being has a mother, the universe must also have a mother. Hume also criticises the argument as it shifts from empirical evidence to something greater than us and beyond. While the argument does begin on the basis of human experience and empiricial verification, it soon moves beyond that into the ideas of how the world and universe must function to exist- this is something humans have no experience of and therefore cannot comment on. The only way the cosmological argument can be justified as an entirely a posteriori viewpoint is if we had experience of causing universes and creating worlds, which we do not. Hume explains this viewpoint with his analogy of a scale, humanity can only understand what we can observe- our half of the scale. The other half of this si hidden from us and out of sight, therefore, we cannot judge or coment on whether this half is greater or lesser than our own. We cannot claim that God exists and is on the other side because we cannot see this. The argument loses its empirical credibility as ti moves beyond human experience into something else which cannot be verified.
However, other philosophers disagree with this view, and conclude that God must exist regardless of this. This si following Leibniz Law- the idea that God is the only sufficient explanation. Leibniz suggested this view as he believed that every being must have an explanation which is equally important at
explaining it's existence, he claimed that the only explanation which was sufficient at explaining the entire universe, was that of an omnipotent God. However, this argument still fails to prove the existence of the Christian God that he and Aquinas were arguing for. While it is logically possible for this God to exist, it is also possible for a cosmic spider to exist, or a commitee of Gods, or even an apprentice God. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails to prove the existence of God as Aquinas suggests.
It could also be argued that God is not the only sufficient reason for the universe at all, and other explanations can be just as valid and convincing. For example, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which negates the need for the existence of God in the universe. The theory of evolution is a key challenge to theological explanations of the universe, and shows how the way things are today is merely a product of evolution. Things move because they have evolved to undergo the chemical processes of change- a plant grows towards the sun because ti si biologically predisposed to go through this process, the first cause can date back to the possibility of a Bgi Bang, and contingency can be explained through evolution and natural selection. Beings developed to live in this world, evolution is a process of random mutations which allowed for things to survive and grow- God is not necessary in this process as mutation can be a random process.
Overall, it is clear to see that the cosmological argument is not a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. There are a number of logical fallacies in the argument that cannot be overcome, such as the fallacy of composition- the assumption that the features of the parts (human experience) is the same as the features of the whole (the universe). God is also not the only sufficient explanation for the way things are today, and a number of scientific approaches can be sufficient enough ot explain the universe, as Leibniz Law would require, these viewpoints are much more sufficient explanation as they provide fewer logical gaps and can be proved by modern science and scientific methods. Critically, the cosmological argument is not a verifiable viewpoint despite its grounds in empirical evidence, we can still provide no evidence to prove that God exists, only that the universe may seem to suggest this- there may be other explanations at play.
To what extent is the cosmological argument a sufficient explanation for the existence of God?
The existence of God has been a long-debated focus of topic for many theologians and philosophers, and many have presented their own arguments as a way of contributing ot this debate. A key argument which attempts to sufficiently explain the existence of the universe is the Aquinas first three ways, also known as the cosmological argument. While the cosmological argument seems to have a number of successes and seems to prove the existence of God, the question remains on whether this is an entirely successful and valid argument when held up against the criticisms of logical fallacies.
The cosmological argument is an a posteriori argument which seeks to prove the existence of God. The argument was formulated by Aquinas and seeks to prove God through the observation of cause and effect in the universe. The first aspect of this argument is the argument through motion. This presents the view that in the universe we can observe the motion of objects. Aquinas suggests that beings which lack intelligence cannot guide themselves towards an end because they do not have the mental capacity to do so. This means that something else, an intelligent being, must guide them towards their end. Aquinas uses the example of an archer to make this point, while an arrow hits a target, it is an archer who aims and fires- the arrow reaches its end, but not without the guidance of an intelligent being. It is claimed that this process can be observed through the natural world itself, and is grounded in views of other philosophers- such as Aristotle, a key empiricist who valued the importance of observation, Aristotle claimed that the stick cannot move the rock without the hand moving the stick- the basis of all
motion is an intelligent being. However, it can also be seen that the value of empiricism is not upheld throughout the entire argument, whilst ti begins with cause and effect in the universe , it ends beyond what humans can verify- there is no way for us to test if God is moving us or impacting our world.
The second form of the cosmological argument comes about from the argument of causation, this uses observation of cause and effect to once again conclude that God must exist and is the only sufficient explanation. All objects are caused to exist by something else- for example, a human does not cause itself but is caused by the actions of its parents. All beings are dependent on something else to come into existence, it is illogical to suggest that a being can cause itself without suggesting that the same being must predate itself, this is a logical impossibility. While this seems to suggest that this process of cause and effect is infinite, it has no set beginning and no set end, this leads to another issue, the problem of infinites. It can not be definitively concluded that an infinite exists, because this can not be verified. If we were to accept infinite causes this would allow for no creation and no current day continuation, because there cannot be additition to an infinite. This leads to the conclusion that there must be a first cause, an uncaused cause or an unmoved mover. This being moves everything else, and set of the chain of cause and efect- this ties closely into Aristotle's explanation of how beings move from products of potentiality to actuality. The purpose of al objects is to reach their final telos, for humans this is fulfilling their purpose. However, while Aristotle concludes that this uncaused cause si the Prime-Mover, Aquinas claims this being is the Christian God. However- this argument does not prove that this is the only sufficient explanation, God is not the only explanation for the universe and other challenges can be made- such as the first cause being a scientific event, the Big Bang.
The third form of the cosmological argument is the argument from contingency. This is the view that al beings are contingent- it is possible for everything not to exist, which means, at some point in history- nothing existed. Considering that everything exists now, there must have been something ot begin creation. This view is critical to proving the existence of God as within God's definition is existence- God is the only con-contingent being and did not have to be caused into existence, God is necessary- he is perfection which means he always has and always will have existence.
However, these viewpoints are not without criticism and may not always be considered a sufficent explanation for Gods existence, this is because a number of key criticisms can be applied. Hume is a notable critic of the cosmological argument and provides a number of claims which he believes refute the idea that Aquinas argument is a sufficient reason of explaining that God exists. One of Hume's criticisms is the fallacy of composition- Aquinas is looking at parts of a process and concluding that this is applicable to everything, just because we can observe cause and effect, this does not necesarily mean that the entire universe displays cause and effect and is dependent on this for being. One example of this view is the suggestion that because every human being has a mother, the universe must also have a mother. Hume also criticises the argument as it shifts from empirical evidence to something greater than us and beyond. While the argument does begin on the basis of human experience and empiricial verification, it soon moves beyond that into the ideas of how the world and universe must function to exist- this is something humans have no experience of and therefore cannot comment on. The only way the cosmological argument can be justified as an entirely a posteriori viewpoint is if we had experience of causing universes and creating worlds, which we do not. Hume explains this viewpoint with his analogy of a scale, humanity can only understand what we can observe- our half of the scale. The other half of this si hidden from us and out of sight, therefore, we cannot judge or coment on whether this half is greater or lesser than our own. We cannot claim that God exists and is on the other side because we cannot see this. The argument loses its empirical credibility as ti moves beyond human experience into something else which cannot be verified.
However, other philosophers disagree with this view, and conclude that God must exist regardless of this. This si following Leibniz Law- the idea that God is the only sufficient explanation. Leibniz suggested this view as he believed that every being must have an explanation which is equally important at
explaining it's existence, he claimed that the only explanation which was sufficient at explaining the entire universe, was that of an omnipotent God. However, this argument still fails to prove the existence of the Christian God that he and Aquinas were arguing for. While it is logically possible for this God to exist, it is also possible for a cosmic spider to exist, or a commitee of Gods, or even an apprentice God. Therefore, the cosmological argument fails to prove the existence of God as Aquinas suggests.
It could also be argued that God is not the only sufficient reason for the universe at all, and other explanations can be just as valid and convincing. For example, the Darwinian theory of evolution, which negates the need for the existence of God in the universe. The theory of evolution is a key challenge to theological explanations of the universe, and shows how the way things are today is merely a product of evolution. Things move because they have evolved to undergo the chemical processes of change- a plant grows towards the sun because ti si biologically predisposed to go through this process, the first cause can date back to the possibility of a Bgi Bang, and contingency can be explained through evolution and natural selection. Beings developed to live in this world, evolution is a process of random mutations which allowed for things to survive and grow- God is not necessary in this process as mutation can be a random process.
Overall, it is clear to see that the cosmological argument is not a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe. There are a number of logical fallacies in the argument that cannot be overcome, such as the fallacy of composition- the assumption that the features of the parts (human experience) is the same as the features of the whole (the universe). God is also not the only sufficient explanation for the way things are today, and a number of scientific approaches can be sufficient enough ot explain the universe, as Leibniz Law would require, these viewpoints are much more sufficient explanation as they provide fewer logical gaps and can be proved by modern science and scientific methods. Critically, the cosmological argument is not a verifiable viewpoint despite its grounds in empirical evidence, we can still provide no evidence to prove that God exists, only that the universe may seem to suggest this- there may be other explanations at play.
Reply 1
For your 6th paragraph, 2nd sentence when you say 'si' is that a term for something?
Reply 2
17
I don't think this would get full marks. For one think you mix up Aquinas' 1st way with his design argument - his 5th way.
Also it's 1500 words - when 900 words is a more realistic aim under exam conditions.
Way too long spent explaining the 3 ways and the evaluation is ok when it's relevant but could be improved.
Also it's 1500 words - when 900 words is a more realistic aim under exam conditions.
Way too long spent explaining the 3 ways and the evaluation is ok when it's relevant but could be improved.
Reply 3
Kaiywaiy
OP
4
Original post by Joe312
I don't think this would get full marks. For one think you mix up Aquinas' 1st way with his design argument - his 5th way.
Also it's 1500 words - when 900 words is a more realistic aim under exam conditions.
Way too long spent explaining the 3 ways and the evaluation is ok when it's relevant but could be improved.
Also it's 1500 words - when 900 words is a more realistic aim under exam conditions.
Way too long spent explaining the 3 ways and the evaluation is ok when it's relevant but could be improved.
Hi, thanks. But this was my actual a level essay answer from this year, which did get full marks
Reply 4
17
Original post by Kaiywaiy
Hi, thanks. But this was my actual a level essay answer from this year, which did get full marks
Interesting, I suppose if you really manage to write that amount in exam conditions you'd have written enough good stuff that they can overlook the mistakes.
How did you manage to write so much in 40 mins?
Reply 5
Kaiywaiy
OP
4
Original post by Joe312
Interesting, I suppose if you really manage to write that amount in exam conditions you'd have written enough good stuff that they can overlook the mistakes.
How did you manage to write so much in 40 mins?
How did you manage to write so much in 40 mins?
I used computers in my exams because my handwriting is illegible, I suppose I’m a fast typer. In the end I got 109 marks in theology, 114 in philosophy and 82 (very disappointed) in ethics with an A* overall.
Reply 6
17
Original post by Kaiywaiy
I used computers in my exams because my handwriting is illegible, I suppose I’m a fast typer. In the end I got 109 marks in theology, 114 in philosophy and 82 (very disappointed) in ethics with an A* overall.
The ethics questions were very unusual last year.
I see, that makes sense. 1500 words would be way too much for most people who handwrite. They should let everyone type imo.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A level religious studies
- GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2024-25
- I answered an essay on the wrong topic HELP will i get zero marks ?!?
- Tips and advice for a-levels
- A level philosophy aqa or ocr religious studies
- Help chemistry ocr a !!!
- A level history or English lit??
- How to get full marks on 9/12 mark questions in OCR A level Computer Science?
- OCR Religious studies AS level
- GCSE Results: Post your results
- Finished A-level Bio, Chem and Religious studies - ASK ME ANYTHING!
- Rs & computer science help
- A level resources- need advice!!
- A-Level Religious Studies Study Group 2024-25
- HELP - OCR chem A level
- OCR A Level Religious Studies 2024 predictions!!!
- GCSE revision help!
- What gcse options should I pick if wanna be a future pharmacist???
- Bullet points in a level exams
- Which Bio exam board should I choose?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 weeks ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 - 17th June 2025 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Eduqas a level re 2025 predictionsLast reply 1 month ago
A-Level Religious Studies Study Group 2024-25Last reply 1 month ago
OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 - 10th June 2025 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Eduqas A Level Religious studies 2024Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (7062/2A-2E) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
OCR Religious Studies- Is my teacher right?Last reply 1 month ago
WJEC GCSE Religious Studies Route B Component 1 - May 13, 2025 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
📚 Last-Minute Questions for AQA RS GCSELast reply 1 month ago
A level religious studiesLast reply 1 month ago
A level OCR RS 40 marker HELLPPPLast reply 2 months ago
AQA A-level Philosophy Paper 1 - 13th May 2025 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 months ago
AQA RS Themes paper chatLast reply 2 months ago
anyone have a functionalism essay for philosophy?Last reply 2 months ago
AQA Philosophy 25 Marker PredictionsLast reply 2 months ago
Eduqas religious studies 2024Last reply 2 months ago
GCSE Religious Studies Study Group 2024-25Last reply 2 months ago
Cram for Philosophy Paper 1
