There are as many people against the cosmological argument as there are supporters of the argument. Even though this argument may be seen as strong as it is one of the oldest arguments to prove the existence of God flaws can be found within the argument. The facts the argument is based on are found from medical science which is not valid anymore as science as moved on and advanced since then.
Since science has advanced and new things have been discovered the scientific community argue the argument is invalid as the information the argument is based on is from medieval science. Thomas Aquinas wrote ‘Summa Theologica’ which is known for its five arguments for the existence of God, three of the ways are known as the cosmological argument, the argument for motion or change, the argument of cause and the argument for contingency. These argument have stood for a very long time but Anthony Kenny picked a flaw in Aquinas’ first way. He made the argument that animals and people can move themselves when Aquinas created the principle that nothing moves itself, Anthony also states that Newton’s first law wrecks the argument of the first way. Newton’s law of motion explains how movement can be explained by a body’s own inertia from previous motion and how it is possible for an object to have uniform motion as well as the object staying at a state of rest. With no outside forces the object will never move, and with no outside forces the moving object will never stop.
David Hume argued why the universe had to have a beginning, and how can anything which lasts an eternity have a cause. Hume went on to say even if the universe did begin it does not mean anything had to cause it to come into existence, this first cause could be anything. Bertrand Russell is a supporter of this argument put together by Hume. Russell went on to state that just because humans have mothers it does not mean the universe has to have a mother. This idea was called ‘The Fallacy of Composition’ the universe could have always been here stated Russell ‘The universe is just there, and that is all.’ He rejected the cosmological argument as he believed there is no need to ask where the argument came from and that we should just accept it as ‘brute fact’. A weakness for the cosmological