Kalam's Argument for the Existence of God

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause outside of itself.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.

This argument means that since nothing is self-created, then something must have created it. The first premise means that if something begins, something else began it. Everything that is created needs a creator. Here is an overly-simplified example: The sandwich you ate for lunch did not make itself, rather someone had to create it. Since the sandwich obviously exists now and did not exist earlier, the sandwich was created, and thus was created by an outside source. Now, we can take Kalam's argument up another level. The universe began to exist, that is, it did not always exist. At some point in time, a universe was created where there was nothing before. Since nothing can create itself, the universe was created by some greater power, God.

Kalam's argument relies on a few other assumed truths, one which is that the past is finite. This means that the universe had a beginning at a certain point in time. A popular theory regarding the origins of the universe is the Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang theory is the popular scientific theory that at some time in far distant past, there was some compact package of matter which suddenly exploded, thrusting huge amounts of matter apart and creating the universe. Many scientists have found evidence supporting the Big Bang theory and as a result it has become the most widely accepted theory regarding the origins of the universe. Try these websites for more information on the Big Bang Theory:

The Incredibly Precise Design of Our Universe

The Big Bang Theory
(Notice that each of these websites dedicates a section to the God question as well)

My Thoughts on Kalam's Argument

At first glance, Kalam's argument seems very logical and seems reasonable. I do believe in the Big Bang theory, that is, I trust the scientists and teachers who have studied this theory and thus I trust in this knowledge from authorities. I also believe Kalam's first premise that everything has a cause, that everything was created by some outside force or entity. Yet, I do have a few problems with this argument, one of which is, "Does Kalam's first premise apply to God?" Kalam's argument says that everything that has a beginning was created by something outside of itself, so did something create God? The Church teaches that nothing created God, that God always existed, and that God consequently never really had a beginning; He just always was. In presupposing that God was never created, Kalam's argument seems to be begging the question, or using a conclusion as an underlying premise. This argument assumes that God does not fit into the first premise of Kalam's argument, so the logic (at least, from my point of view) seems to look like this:

1.Everything that had a beginnning was created by something outside of itself.
(2.But, God never had a beginning, so God was not created by something outside of Himself.)
3. The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe was created by something outside of itself, and this something was God. Thus God exists.

From my point of view, it seems that God's existence is pre-supposed in the premises and then appears as a conclusion. Because of this, some of the logic behind Kalam's argument does not make sense to me.

Overall, I do not particularly like Kalam's argument as evidence for God's existence. To me, this argument is too scientific and deals with several theories beyond my current knowledge, such as the origins of the universe. Since the Big Bang theory has not been proven, and is likely to never be truly proven, some of Kalam's argument seems ungrounded and based on premises which may or may not be true. Kalam's argument also seems to over-simplify the God question into two short premises, which seems to me to be too simple of an explanation. How can the existence of an infinite being such as God be summed up in a few short sentences? To me, such a complicated question deserves an equally complicated answer.

Sources