Bertrand Russell on The cosmological argument
Russell argued that the cosmological argument fails because there is no reason the universe cannot be a brute fact requiring no explanation.
In his famous 1948 BBC debate with Frederick Copleston, Russell articulated what has become the standard empiricist response to the cosmological argument: the universe simply exists, and that is all. The demand for an explanation of the universe's existence assumes that the universe is the kind of thing that needs an explanation — and Russell denied this assumption.
Russell distinguished between individual things within the universe, which may each have causes, and the universe as a whole. The fallacy of composition — inferring that the whole has a property because each part has it — applies here. Every human being has a mother, but it does not follow that the human race as a whole has a mother.
He also challenged Copleston's appeal to the principle of sufficient reason, arguing that it is not self-evident and may not apply to the universe as a whole. If we must choose between accepting the universe as a brute fact and positing God as an explanation, Russell argued that the former is more economical and less mysterious.
“The universe is just there, and that's all.”
“I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all. I see no reason to suppose that it had a beginning or that it requires an explanation.”