Thoughts on the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Of the things debated in society, perhaps nothing is more hotly contested than the existence of a God. Over the course of time there have been many arguments made from many different angles. For example, an argument in favor of existence is the teleological argument also known as "fine tuning," or the "argument from design" argues that the universe is so organized as to suggest the necessity of a designer. (1) Likewise there are many arguments against the existence of a God; perhaps the most well know is the "problem of evil" which argues if there is an omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect being, he (or she) would know where evil is, have the power to destroy it, and being morally perfect would do so. Since evil exists, it is argued God must not. (2) Since stumbling across such arguments about God I have found myself fascinated by the arguments made and especially intrigued by the evolution that these arguments take over time. I would like to share a few thoughts on a specific argument in favor of God; The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The History of the Cosmological argument

Perhaps one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, we can trace the cosmological argument at least as far back as to Aristotle who argued for a first cause. Notably, Thomas Aquinas presented a few different versions of this argument. I will reference two.

1st The argument from motion; essentially Aquinas argued that things move as a result of other movements. Aquinas believed an infinite regression to be unreasonable and thus concluded there must be a "prime mover." i.e. God.

2nd The argument from causation; in this case he argues essentially the same, that all things are caused and to avoid the problem of an infinite regression means there must be an uncaused first cause. i.e. God.

Both of these arguments have taken a great deal of criticism. I will briefly outline them here.

Criticism 1: The first criticism deals primarily with the identity of God. Even if you accept these arguments they do not make a case for a particular God, or in fact a singular God. The same argument could justify polytheism as theism. In addition, the arguments do not make the case of a sentient God. Thus the cosmological arguments don’t support the kind of personal God people profess to believe in or pray to.

Criticism 2: Thomas Aquinas rejected an infinite regress as possible, though so far as I can tell no case is made as to why.

Criticism 3: The arguments are themselves, self-defeating. If everything that moves is the result of another mover, or every cause the result of a causer, why is God an exception? If there are exceptions, we have no reason to accept the first premise of either argument.

This brings me to why I am fascinated by the KCA.

A brief summary of the KCA

Here is a video that briefly outlines the argument.





Basically the argument goes like this;

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe had a cause

It is argued that there must have been a cause that brought the Universe into being. As Dr. Craig puts it "Now as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power". Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either an abstract object, like numbers, or else a personal mind. But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent, intelligent mind. Thus, the cosmological argument gives us a personal creator of the universe."

KCA vs Cosmological Criticisms

We see that the KCA addresses some of the criticism of older cosmological arguments and ignores others.

The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God. It does not really seem to address infinite regression. What it really does in my opinion is give reasoning to why God would or could be the sole exception to the rule of causation.

Closing

Do you find the KCA convincing? If you do, or don’t, I am curious as to what convinces you.

Sources

(1) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
(2) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Kasmic: ' The KCA does give some justification for a "personal" creator though I think it is still reasonable to say it does not argue for a specific God. "

With that I would tend to agree, however with the caveat that only Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or any other worldview that would posit an eternal and immaterial god would qualify. Perhaps Brahmanism as well might qualify. But I don't think Zeus, Thor, or Shiva would fit the bill.


I would say the KCA is a very good argument for establishing a general Theism/Deism, however I tend to disagree with the methodology of proving the existence of God through evidential means as I tend to take a more reformed view that innate knowledge of God is such that one doesn't need an evidential argument to make a decision as to His existence. See Romans 1:18-21)

Kasmic: P2 fails. It is only an assertion. There is no evidence that the universe began to exist. In order for the universe to have begun to exist, it must have not existed at some point in time. Since time is a property of the universe, this leads to incoherence.

Another problem (and there are many) is that the KCA attempts to impose the temporal law of cause and effect (which applies withing our universe) to the universe itself. This is the fallacy of composition. It's like saying that what applies to the parts of a plane (that they can't fly) must apply to the plane itself. A clear fallacy.

* within our universe

The kalam cosmological argument is probably my favorite piece of philosophy. It raises so many fascinating questions that getting to the bottom of it all promises a lifetime of investigation and study, as William Lane Craig himself I'm sure has found (having brought to argument to philosophical attention in 1979, he is still publishing articles on it and furthering the debate).

Moreover, I think the argument's a good one. It narrows the field of live options to the major theistic faiths, or a type of deism. That is surely an extraordinary conclusion in its own right.

I should also add that P1 is a woolly statement. Most, if not all, change in the universe is transformation, not creation. When can something really be said to have begun to exist? That can be extremely difficult to pin down. For example, when does an oak tree begin to exist? Is it when the first shoot comes out of the ground? Is it when roots first form from the buried acorn? Is it when the acorn itself is formed? Is it when fertilization of the fruit occurs to produce the acorn? Etc. Etc. I can't think of any example where you can pinpoint precisely when something began to exist.

O.S.A: The “or any” that you mention is significant. Part of my issue with the Kalam is that it does not argue for Judaism, Islam, or Christianity specifically. Nor would accepting the Kalam logically limit the possibility to those options.

however I tend to disagree with the methodology of proving the existence of God through evidential means

This is one of the main reasons I find myself doubting the existence of a Christian God. It seems to me suspicious that I ought to believe without evidence. Even more so when apologist like William Lane Craig say things like “Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”(1) It seems to be the theme that not only do you not need evidence, but that even if evidence showed contrary to the faith it ought to bed discarded.

(1) William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), 36.

dee-em: I have read a good amount on A and B time theories and confess that I seem unable to really understand the kritik. I understand the concept of "began" is sketchy as it is a concept that means nothing without time and time is part of what is supposed to have began. Personally, I feel sufficient doubt can be cast on the Kalam without even addressing that issue. Though, it would be nice to understand theories of time.

Miles_Donahue: I am under the impression that even if accepted the argument does not narrow the live options to major theistic faiths or Deism. Rather, that seems to be a false dichotomy ss it is conceivable that if there is such a God, said God could still be entirely unknown. This does not imply Deism, or current major theism.

dee-em: Interesting point. I used to argue the kalam guilty of special pleading.

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

I would ask if anything exists that did not begin to exist. If the only possible answer is God than it seems to me that the first premise is a semantic ploy to hide special pleading.

Kasmic: The nature of time is probably the biggest mystery in the universe. I think the use of the word "theory" is too strong. We have hypotheses about time and not much more.

Kasmic: I would ask if anything exists that did not begin to exist. If the only possible answer is God than it seems to me that the first premise is a semantic ploy to hide special pleading.

Most arguments for God rely on special pleading of some sort. Theists make a rule and then immediately assert that God is an exception. It is always completely arbitrary why God doesn't have to obey the rule. They just define him that way thinking that this solves the problem.

(I have a very good argument for the non-existence of God if you are interested).

dee-em: I am curious to see your argument. Perhaps you could message it to me?

dee-em: Or, or, or...perhaps you could debate me on it?

Kasmic: Well, if we define deism as the view that God created the universe, designed it even, perhaps, and then left the universe to develop of its own accord without revealing himself to humanity, that just is the view that "God [is] entirely unknown." So the options of deism or some theistic religion are exhaustive of all the options.

Another way of stating the point is that the kalam cosmological argument disqualifies all non-theistic religions. I'm content with that way of phrasing it.

Miles_Donahue: Or, or, or...perhaps you could debate me on it?

No, I'm not very interested in formal debates. I'll start a new thread.

(I can't seem to accept your friend request. It gives me an error. Sorry).

Miles, please ignore the bit about a friend request. I thought I was responding to Kasmic.

Kasmic: I am curious to see your argument. Perhaps you could message it to me?

I started a new thread. You can find it there. I look forward to your views on it.

Miles_Donahue: Well, if we define deism as the view that God created the universe, designed it even, perhaps, and then left the universe to develop of its own accord without revealing himself to humanity, that just is the view that "God [is] entirely unknown." So the options of deism or some theistic religion are exhaustive of all the options.

That is still special pleading based on asserting that the universe absolutely needs a creator but God does not. There is no getting away from it. Why not just apply Occam's Razor? Why is that not an option?

dee-em: But Dee-em, let's keep two questions distinct: (1) Is the kalam cosmological argument sound and persuasive?, and (2) If it is sound, what follows? We've been talking about (2), so it's not right to object that the argument commits special pleading; fine, I'm not concerned to defend the KCA at this point. My only claim is that if it is sound, then it limits our live options to theistic religions. Do you agree or disagree?