The Kalam(Philosphical) Argument
Summary of the Argument
The argument starts by claiming that the universe had a beginning. This is proven by disproving that the universe did not have a beginning. But in order to do that, you first have to understand the difference between an actual infinity and a potential infinite.
Actual Infinite
-
A set or series that is impossible to complete. It is impossible to do anything for an actual infinite amount of time or count to an actual infinite.
Potential Infinite
-
A set or series that can potentially be infinite if you divide it into smaller sections or perform other operations on it. An example by Zeno, the Greek Philosopher, would be walking a certain amount of distance. That distance you walked can be divided by half and if you keep on dividing it by half it will never end and thus be a potential infinite since it became infinite after the constant division by two.
Of course, the universe cannot be infinite because that would mean that the universe has already existed for an infinite amount of time. If that is true then in order to arrive at the present time then an actual infinite would have been completed, which is something impossible. This is also supported by the Big Bang and Big Crunch theories.
The second step in the argument is claiming that the beginning had a cause. This is done by proving that it is absurd to say that the universe began without a cause. If it had no cause or nothing started its beginning then it had to have just began out of nowhere out of or from nothing, which is absurd.
The third step in the argument is claiming that the Universe was caused by something outside of itself. This is done by proving it is absurd to say that the universe could be created by something within itself. Some people claim that the universe was caused by something inside of it, but do not explain what caused the thing inside of the universe that caused the universe. So if we call the thing inside of the universe a variable like 'x' and the universe itself the variable 'U' then the argument that something outside of the universe caused its existence would explain all of 'U', where the argument of internal cause would explain 'U' minus the internal cause 'x', which of course would not equal all of 'U', so really the internal cause argument fails to explain why the universe came into existence.
The fourth step in the argument is claiming that the external cause of the universe did not have a cause. This is done by proving it is absurd to say that this thing did have a cause. If you imagine for a second that the external cause of the Universe has its own cause then you could ask if that cause of the cause of the Universe had its own cause and you could try to ask that for an actual infinite, but of course that is impossible, so if something external caused the universe then that something did not have a cause.
The fifth step is figuring out what that external cause is. Everything within the Universe is called natural and so if its outside the universe it might be supernatural and in order to create the Universe with all of its laws this thing must be powerful and knowlegdable. It also does not depend upon anything for its existence. This description fits God so those that believe in the Kalam argument claim that it is evidence that God does exist.
Historical Sources
The word Kalam is an arabic word meaning theological philosophy. The argument, or arguments very similiar, were popular in the Middle East with Muslims during the Middle Ages but many other European philosophers came up with similiar arguments, such as Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Personal Opinion of the Argument
I think that, while the argument presents some good points, that it is overly biased toward people that believe in God. It seems like the argument disproves what it views as the only other possibilities rather than proving the possibility it defends. I do not really like that since it is possible, though unlikely, that there are possiblilities unexplored by the argument. Also by not even trying to disprove the possibilities the argument defends, it makes it even more likely that the person that developed the argument alright knew the answer that he/she wanted to be right. I also think the whole argument on actual infinites is kind of weak, but maybe I just don't understand it. I do not see how the fact that the present exists disproves the possibility that the universe had no beginning, but I do see how the ideas of the fluxuation between Big Bang and Big Crunch do disprove it. Overall though, I would say that his argument would not convince me to believe in God if I did not already believe in him.
Sources
The University of Buffalo
- I used this source for the majority of the summary
Possibility of An Actual Infinite Future
- I used this source to see some arguments against the kalam argument and maybe help me understand the first part of the argument by reading someone try to disprove it
University of Colorado
- I used this source as another argument against the kalam argument