top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Nov 148 min read

How Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument Lead to the Existence of a First Cause?


The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most prominent philosophical arguments in favor of the existence of God, emphasizing the necessity of a Creator for the universe. At its core, this argument asserts that the universe had a beginning, and therefore, it must have had a cause. This cause, the argument claims, can only be God. The argument is rooted in the principle of causality, which holds that everything that begins to exist must have a cause.


The kalam argument differs from other forms of the cosmological argument in that it emphasizes the temporal nature of the universe—its beginning in time—thus positing that the universe is not eternal. This necessitates a cause outside of itself, which theists identify as God. The formulation of this argument has a long history, primarily developed by Islamic philosophers like Alfarabi, Al-Ghazali, and Avicenna, and later embraced by some Christian thinkers. However, it has also faced objections from skeptics and alternative philosophical schools of thought. This article will explore the argument in detail, presenting both its defenses and the criticisms it faces.



What Is the Core Structure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?


The essence of the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be summarized in a simple, logical sequence:


  1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

  2. The universe had a beginning.

  3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.


This sequence is based on both scientific and philosophical reasoning. The first premise follows the principle of causality, which is fundamental to understanding the world around us. Every effect has a cause. For example, if we see a house, we naturally assume that it was built by someone; it did not just appear on its own. The same reasoning is applied to the universe as a whole: if it began to exist, it must have had a cause for its existence.


The second premise, that the universe had a beginning, is supported by both scientific and philosophical evidence. Modern cosmology points to the Big Bang as the moment when the universe came into existence, suggesting that the universe is not eternal. The philosophical argument for the universe’s beginning challenges the idea of an infinite past by demonstrating that an actual infinite number of past moments is impossible.


Thus, the conclusion follows that if the universe had a beginning, and everything that begins must have a cause, the universe must have had a cause. Theists argue that this cause can only be God, as nothing within the universe itself can adequately explain its origin.



How Does Science Support the Kalam Cosmological Argument?


The scientific evidence supporting the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is grounded in the principles of modern cosmology and physics, particularly the Second Law of Thermodynamics and Big Bang cosmology. Both of these scientific concepts strongly suggest that the universe had a beginning.


Second Law of Thermodynamics


The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which deals with entropy (the measure of disorder), states that the amount of usable energy in a closed system is constantly decreasing. This means that the universe is running down, moving toward a state of maximum entropy. If the universe were eternal, it would have already reached this state of equilibrium, with no usable energy left. The fact that the universe is still filled with usable energy, and that processes like stars burning fuel are still ongoing, implies that the universe had a finite beginning. If the universe had no beginning, it would have already run out of usable energy.


Big Bang Cosmology


Big Bang cosmology is another major scientific pillar supporting the argument that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe began as an incredibly dense point of energy and matter approximately 13.8 billion years ago. This moment of creation marks the beginning of time, space, and matter. Prior to the Big Bang, there was no universe, which supports the second premise of the kalam argument: the universe began to exist. The expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background radiation (thought to be a remnant of the Big Bang), and other observational data all point to the fact that the universe is not eternal but had a definite starting point.


What Philosophical Arguments Support a Beginning of the Universe?


In addition to scientific evidence, philosophical reasoning also supports the idea that the universe had a beginning. A key philosophical argument against the eternity of the universe is based on the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite series of moments. This can be understood as follows:


  1. If the universe were eternal, there would be an infinite number of past moments leading up to the present.

  2. It is impossible to traverse an actual infinite series of moments (i.e., to reach the present moment from an infinite past).

  3. But we have reached the present moment.

  4. Therefore, the universe must have had a finite number of past moments—it had a beginning.


The idea here is that if the universe had no beginning, there would be an infinite number of events in the past. However, an infinite series of past events could never be completed because no matter how many events had occurred, there would always be more to go. Yet, we are here in the present, which means that the number of past moments must be finite. This suggests that the universe had a beginning, which in turn implies that it had a cause.



How Do Critics Respond to the Kalam Cosmological Argument?


Despite its strong support from both science and philosophy, the kalam argument has faced several criticisms. Some of the most significant objections are addressed below, along with responses from proponents of the argument.


Eternal Eventless Universe


One objection suggests that the Big Bang may not have been the actual beginning of the universe. Instead, the universe could have existed in a state of eternal quiescence before the Big Bang. According to this view, the Big Bang was simply the first event in an eternal universe that existed without any significant occurrences before the explosion.


However, this idea runs into several problems. First, there are no known natural laws that could account for a violent eruption like the Big Bang occurring after an eternity of absolute stillness. Second, proponents of the kalam argument argue that such an eternal eventless universe would have to exist at absolute zero, which is physically impossible. Matter at the beginning of the universe was anything but cold; it was compressed into a fireball with temperatures in excess of billions of degrees Kelvin. Third, positing eternal primordial matter does nothing to explain the incredible order and fine-tuning that followed the Big Bang. This order strongly suggests the existence of an intelligent Creator.


Rebounding Universe


Another hypothesis proposed by critics is the idea of a "rebounding universe" or an eternal cycle of expansion and collapse. According to this theory, the Big Bang may have been just one of many expansions following earlier collapses of the universe, with this process continuing indefinitely into the past and future. However, this idea also encounters significant problems. First, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of a rebounding universe. Second, the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses a problem for this theory, as it implies that even in a rebounding universe, energy would still be running out over time. Ultimately, the universe would collapse and fail to expand again. Lastly, even if the universe were in a cycle of expansion and contraction, the original beginning of the universe—when space, time, and matter first came into existence—would still need to be explained. This beginning points to the necessity of a Creator.


Steady State Theory


The steady-state theory, proposed by astronomer Fred Hoyle, suggests that the universe is eternal and that new hydrogen atoms are constantly coming into existence to prevent the universe from running down. This theory was devised as an alternative to the Big Bang theory, seeking to avoid the need for a beginning to the universe. However, the steady-state theory has been largely discredited by scientific evidence, particularly the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which strongly supports the Big Bang model. Moreover, no evidence has ever been found for the spontaneous creation of hydrogen atoms. Even if such atoms were spontaneously appearing, this would itself be a form of creation from nothing, requiring a cause. The steady-state theory, therefore, fails to provide a coherent explanation for the origin of the universe.



How Does the Kalam Argument Address the Question of God's Existence?


Some critics of the kalam argument have claimed that even if it successfully proves that the universe had a cause, it does not necessarily prove the existence of God. Specifically, they argue that the kalam argument does not show that the cause of the universe is a personal, intelligent, or moral being.


In response, proponents of the kalam argument have offered several arguments to demonstrate that the First Cause of the universe must be a personal, intelligent God. One such argument is based on the nature of free will and causality:


  1. The universe had a First Cause.

  2. This First Cause’s act to create the universe was either determined, undetermined, or self-determined.

  3. It could not have been determined by anything else, because nothing existed before the First Cause.

  4. It could not have been undetermined, because that would contradict the principle of causality.

  5. Therefore, the act to create the universe must have been self-determined, which means it was a free act.

  6. Free acts are the result of intelligence and will.

  7. Therefore, the First Cause must have been an intelligent, personal being.


Another argument stems from the fine-tuning of the universe. The universe appears to be "fine-tuned" for the existence of life, with its physical constants and laws set precisely to allow for the emergence of human beings. This fine-tuning suggests that the First Cause of the universe is not just a powerful force but also an intelligent Creator who designed the universe with a purpose in mind.



About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


YOU MAY ALSO ENJOY


Explore the search for the real Jesus through ancient texts and scholarly insights.



RECOMMENDED READING FOR CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND EVANGELISM


10 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page