For AS level students looking to evaluate Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument, this is very helpful
The Vertical Cosmological Argument has various forms and is rather conceptual, but can be described as:
1. Everything in the universe is contingent (they could “not exist”).
2. All contingent things need an ongoing cause to sustain them.
3. Therefore the universe needs an ongoing cause to sustain it.
(a more detailed description can be found here)
Common attacks from critics on this argument are 1) this untrue since it depends on the principle of sufficient reason, and 2) it’s the fallacy of composition. We won’t deal with the first here other than to say the vertical cosmological argument does not hinge on sufficient reason, but on the principle of causality, which is very different.
But the second is a bit more tricky. The fallacy of composition can be described with the following illustrations: if every tile in a floor is square, it does not follow that the whole…
View original post 406 more words