Prepare for your GCSE Philosophy and Ethics Exam with our comprehensive multiple-choice quizzes and flashcards. Each question includes hints and detailed explanations to enhance your learning and improve your exam readiness. Start practicing now!

Each practice test/flash card set has 50 randomly selected questions from a bank of over 500. You'll get a new set of questions each time!

Practice this question and more.


One of the strengths of the cosmological argument is that it:

  1. Is compatible with the theory of evolution

  2. Denies the existence of God

  3. Is based on experience of cause and effect

  4. Supports the idea of infinite regression

The correct answer is: Is based on experience of cause and effect

The cosmological argument fundamentally relies on the principle of causality, which asserts that everything that exists must have a cause. This argument identifies the existence of the universe and its components as evidence that there must be an initial cause or reason for their existence, ultimately leading to the conclusion of a first cause, often identified as God. This strength lies in its foundation on observable experiences and the well-understood concept of cause and effect in the natural world. People encounter cause and effect in their daily lives, such as when one event leads to another (for example, fire causes smoke). Therefore, this observable reality supports the cosmological argument's assertion that since everything in the universe has a cause, there must be a transcendent cause that initiated this chain of effects — a role that is attributed to God. The other options do not strengthen the argument. Compatibility with the theory of evolution does not directly pertain to the cosmological argument, which addresses the existence of the universe rather than biological development. Denying the existence of God goes against the argument's primary intention, as it seeks to affirm God's existence. Finally, supporting infinite regression contradicts the cosmological argument, which argues against an infinite series of causes, advocating instead for a first cause to avoid the