The first of these give ways make similar points based on the idea that infinite regression is not possible; there must have been one thing that started off everything that happened.
In them Philo, Demea and Cleanthes discuss arguments for the existence of God. Hume was a sceptic and therefore doubtful about the claims of religion. The cosmological argument rests on certain principles of causation.
In particular that any existent thing must have a cause or reason for its existence this is what Leibniz points to in his principle of sufficient reasonand that there cannot be more in the effect than there is in the cause. Hume challenges these assumptions in his Dialogues. There are three main categories of criticism that Hume makes of the argument.
Firstly he has general concerns about the way it is structured, and believes that this structure is fallacious, secondly he has more specific concerns related to causation and finally he raises challenges to do with the concepts of contingency and necessity.
He gives the example of a collection of twenty particles — if an explanation is found for each particle individually he says it would be wrong to then seek an explanation for the whole collection, because you have already explained it by explaining each particle. So to look for a cause of this whole arbitrarily defined by us would seem to be mistaken.
Hume also has some challenges to the notion of causation, which the cosmological argument relies heavily on. In the Dialogues Demea puts forward an analogy of a house needing an architect — likewise the existence of an ordered universe requires a divine architect.
Hume had developed a theory of causation that was based on our epistemological limits as human beings — to talk about the origin of the universe is to go beyond the scope of human understanding and observation, as it is impossibly remote and unavailable to us.
The empirical method is based on the ability to make observations to explain the causes of things.
This is only possible for particular effects in the universe. He gives the example of a billiard ball hitting another — all we can observe is that the motion of one ball follows the motion of the other ball — we link the two in our minds and say that one causes the other to move, but there is no evidence of a link.
Therefore, to base an argument on causation would be foolish, as we could never be sure that causation is anything other than a psychological effect. In other words why posit a necessary being rather than a necessary universe?
There is a deeper problem with the idea of a necessary being too. Any being that exists can also not exist, and there is no contradiction implied in conceiving its non-existence, but this is exactly what would have to be the case, if its existence were necessary.In this essay I will show Samuel Clarkes Cosmological Argument.
Philosopher Samuel Clarke put forth a modern formulation of the cosmological argument taking a. In natural theology and philosophy, a cosmological argument is an argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally seen as some kind of god.
a) Explain Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument.  Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument are found in his book Dialogues on Natural Religion.
A Critique of the Cosmological Argument. Paul Edwards. I. The so-called “cosmological proof” is one of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God. Free Essay: For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their.
Essay on Critique of Aquinas's Cosmological Argument Words | 4 Pages Critique of Aquinas's Cosmological Argument Aquinas's 3rd way suggests that the world consists of contingent beings.