Issues Arising

Does the Cosmological Argument prove God or show that it is reasonable to believe in God? What counts as 'reasonable'? Can the cosmological argument be proved or is it more about degrees of certainty? Does the cosmological argument successfully deal with infinite regress? Which is a more reasonable explanation of the universe - that it is just there and requires no explanation or that God is the explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing? How do you decide? How convincing are the criticisms of the cosmological argument? Is God the only conclusion?

Strengths It gives an explanation. Science supports a beginning to the universe. Criticisms fail. Consistent with God as the explanation. Part of the Cumulative argument for God. Weaknesses Not a proof. Matter could exist necessarily without God. Criticisms are persuasive. If God does not have a cause, then why should the universe also not have a cause? The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God, so it does little to strengthen the cosmological argument.

Of Value for religious faith It gives intellectual support for belief in God. Only God provides explanation that requires no further explanation.It reveals aspects of the nature of God (e.g. unmoved mover, sustainer, necessary being).Of limited or no Value for religious faithThe argument is flawed.It draws conclusions that go beyond the evidence. It is inductive and therefore not a proof.Religious faith is not a based on intellectual arguments.Proof would leave no room for faith.