Kalam's Argument

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a cosmological argument for God's existence using the universe's existence as evidence. The argument has three premises:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

The argument works by supporting the (a) option for the first premise, and subsequently uses this to back up the following premises. Since the argument is a series of arguments that take the form of a valid argument known as a disjunctive syllogism, the argument's formal validity is beyond dispute. However, for the argument to be valid, each of the premises must be true. Thus, discussion of the argument centers upon the premises' validity.

Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig offers this argument in support of a universe with a beginning.

1. An actual infinite (a collection of things with an infinite number of members - i.e., a library with an infinite amount of books) cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, the universe cannot have existed infinitely in the past, as that would make it a beginningless series of events.

The distinctive feature of this argument is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. In other words, the Kalam argument tries to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning.

So, to summarize the Kalam argument:
1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2: The universe began to exist.
3: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Because this is a theology assignment, it is important to point out that while Kalam's argument does mandate that the universe has a cause, it does not force the conclusion that a Divinity of any kind exists. This crucial omission to the argument has left people wondering whether or not its conclusion calls for God's existence. Objectors to this concusion claim that the universe could have come into being by way of a natural (thus impersonal) cause. Theists, though, conter-argue that in order for something to have a natural cause, nature must have existed before it. If this were true, those objectors would be claiming that nature existed before the universe.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. The Kalam argument is a version of the cosmological argument derived from the Islamic Kalam form of dialectical argument. It has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word kalam means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism."

Certain elements of Kalam's argument, such as the inclusion of actual infinites, can be traced back to Aristotle. Additionally, Thomas Acquinas used a similar proof to try to prove the existence of a 'Necessary Being' (God) in Summa Theologica.

Recently, the argument has gained steam since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Kalam argument is persuasive to me, and I agree with it to the extent that I understand it. From my own personal experience, I agree that in order for something to exist, something must cause that thing to exist. Thus I agree with the Kalam argument's conclusion at a basic level - that something caused the universe to happen at some point. However, I have faith in God, and can adapt the Kalam argument to my own beliefs: God, in His infinite love, caused the universe to happen, and created us. The existence of God as an infinite being does not contradict the Kalam argument's stance on actual infinites because as a supernatural being, God can take up infinite space, while a library cannot.

One part of the argument I have trouble with is its claim that the universe cannot be infinite. This cannot be proven to me because no people have ever explored the universe's limits (or discovered any).

I found this passage from PhiloWiki (see sources) to be especially thought-provoking:

"Once it is recognized that something didn't need a cause, isn't it just as likely the universe didn't need a cause as God not needing a cause? Moreland does make an attempt to answer this. He does recognize that his arguments would seem to imply that God needs a cause. His response is that things with beginnings must have a cause, but since God had no beginning, He needs no cause. But that begs the question, why would things without a beginning not need a cause? Moreland does attempt to answer this too. He employs use of Saint Thomas Aquinas' concept of the Necessary Being. According to Aquinas (and Moreland) there had to be something that owes its existence only to itself. Therefore this Necessary Being needs no cause and actually could not have not existed. The concept of the Necessary Being has been refuted by many philosophers, notably including David Hume. The problems with the argument are numerous. For example, it would be just as easy to define the universe as a “necessary universe” and say that it could not have not existed. It is the same argument, with the same validity. (Actually, calling the universe a "necessary universe" is actually a better argument than calling God a "necessary Being" because we at least know the universe exists...)" ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sources
1. Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Summary
2. A Dissenter to the Argument
3. PhiloWiki
4. The 20 Arguments For God ^ This site especially interested me.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Back to My Homepage