The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Introduction
In this article, I addressed some problems with the ontology of Epicurus, noting that my evaluation raised theological issues. Below, I will address one of them.
Epicurean ontology asserts a beginningless universe, i.e., that the universe has always existed. But current evidence to the contrary preponderates, which raises a question about what caused the universe to begin. We are now prepared to consider the kalam cosmological argument (KCA). There are other versions of cosmological argumentation, but I will emphasize the KCA in this post.
The KCA is both historically and currently significant. William Lane Craig, the leading contemporary advocate of the argument, has dubbed it the “kalam argument” in recognition of its origin in the work of Medieval Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali. [1] The argument continues to interest philosophers and theologians. Its structure is simple:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The argument is deductively valid. This means that the conclusion must be true if the premises are true and there is no hidden fallacy. The conclusion, as we shall see, is theologically significant. But why accept the premises?
Support for Premise (1)
Consider three points. First, there is a plausible metaphysical insight that things do not come into being from nothing without explanation. This intuition is expressed in the longstanding philosophical principle ex nihilo nihil fit. The claim that something can begin from nothingness seems contrary to philosophical insight, scientific practice, common experience (have you ever come across something that popped into existence from nothing and for no reason?), and even literary sensibility. To elaborate, consider Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven:
“Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—
Only this and nothing more.” [2]
Poe’s nearly napping character naturally assumes that the rapping has an efficient cause; i.e., he assumes something like the principle of causation or the principle of sufficient reason. The noise is not a tapping that arises from nothing and for no reason. (This is confirmed later in the poem.)
Second, suppose (1) is false. We should expect to observe things coming into being from nothing. If the whole universe started from nothing, why not smaller things like cats? We might see, for example, canoes, carrots, and cats beginning to exist from nothing in our streets, parks, and beaches. But we do not experience such things. Thus, we have an experiential reason to accept (1) and no evidence to deny it.
Third, (1) accords with widespread empirical observation. It is not merely the case that (1) is not refuted by empirical examples of things popping into existence from nothing. It is also the case that (1) is repeatedly substantiated in human experience and presupposed in scientific and other kinds of observation. Given these reasons, the burden of proof is on the denier of (1). As Roderick Chisholm wrote, one should be guided in philosophy by those propositions we presuppose in ordinary life. We have an epistemic right to believe them unless there is a sufficient argument to believe otherwise. Hence, the burden of proof is on the one who denies them. [3]
Support for Premise (2)
Note three reasons for (2): (a) an actually infinite number of things is impossible; (b) the evidence for the big bang indicates the universe began to exist; (c) the second law of thermodynamics shows the universe had a beginning.
Why accept (a)? Consider a story that shows the absurdity of an actually infinite number of things. [4] Suppose there is a movie theater with only 500 seats. The theater is showing The Man Who Knew Infinity. All 500 tickets are sold and every seat is occupied. You try to purchase a ticket and the agent says: “Sorry, sold out!”
Now, suppose the theater has an actually infinite number of seats. An actually infinite number of tickets are sold and every seat is occupied. You go to purchase a ticket and the agent says: “You want a ticket for The Man Who Knew Infinity? I’ll tell you what. I’m such a man. That’ll be $10, please.” Then, he moves the person in seat one to seat two, the person in seat two to seat three, out to infinity. As a result of this fancy footwork, seat one opens and you gladly sit.
But now, suppose an actually infinite number of people want to watch the film even though the actually infinite number of seats are filled by an actually infinite number of other people. The agent says: “I know infinity and I’ll prove it!” He moves the person in seat one to seat two, the person in seat two to seat four, seat three to seat six, seat four to seat eight, etc. He moves each person to the seat double his initial seat number. Since any number multiplied by two is an even number, all end up in even seats. Thus, all the odd seats become available. Consequently, there is an actually infinite number of open seats – all the odd ones. The agent says: “See, I know infinity. Have a seat! And to all of you who moved, an actually infinite number of apologies for the inconvenience!” Finally, the agent sits to count the actually infinite number of dollars he collected for his efforts, despite having already collected an infinite number of dollars from selling the first batch of infinite seats. A daunting task!
If (2) is false, the universe had no beginning. Hence, an actually infinite number of moments have passed before now. But, as the story suggests, that there is an actually infinite number of things is absurd. Moreover, if the present moment can occur only after an infinite number of prior moments have occurred, then the present moment would never happen. But it is happening now, which indicates that (2) is true.
How about (b)? The big bang model of the universe holds that it is expanding from an initial point, which indicates that the universe had a beginning. The empirical evidence available for the big bang makes it a reasonable position to hold, as I noted here.
What can be said for (c)? The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, energy eventually runs out and the system dies. But the universe is such a closed system. So, if the universe were past eternal, it would have died by now. But the universe is not dead. For example, the sun is shining and burning energy. So, the universe is not past eternal. It had a beginning.
The Theological Significance of (3)
Notice that space, time, and matter began with the universe. Thus, the efficient cause of the universe is the cause of these. But nothing can be the efficient cause of itself, since that would require that it first exists in order to bring itself into existence, which is absurd. Hence, the cause of the universe is beyond space, time, and matter. Therefore, the cause is immaterial, non-spatial, and timeless. The cause is also changeless, since whatever is timeless is changeless.
Moreover, it is rational to hold that the cause is personal. Why? First, plausibly, there are two types of causal explanation: naturalistic/scientific and personal. But a transcendent cause of the universe cannot be naturalistic/scientific, since such a cause requires an already existing physical universe. Hence, it is reasonable to hold that the cause is personal. Second, the cause is spaceless and immaterial. Plausibly, the only entities having such properties are minds and abstract objects. But abstract objects lack causal power. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the cause is a mind with the power to generate the sort of ordered and intelligible universe that we discover via observation. Third, the beginning of the universe is an effect of an immaterial and atemporal cause. The cause is sufficient for its effect, which suggests that the effect would be coeternal with the cause, unless the cause has freedom of will and freely created the universe. Now, if there is free will, there is personal agency. Hence, we have a reason to believe that the cause of the universe is a personal agent. In short, there is reason to believe that the cause is a mind who is timeless, non-spatial, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, creative, and free. This is the theological significance of the evidence that the universe had a beginning.
There are objections to the KCA which should be recognized and discussed. I will try to address them below.
Objections and Replies
First, one might note that God is the metaphysically greatest possible being, i.e., the supremely perfect being. God is intrinsically worthy of worship. God thus necessarily possesses all the great-making attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection, and aseity. But even if we grant the conceptual analysis above regarding the properties of the cause of the universe, the KCA doesn’t show that this cause possesses omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection, and aseity.
Response: One should grant that the KCA doesn’t demonstrate the existence of God in the sense of all of the divine attributes. However, the argument points in the direction of God and, if combined with other plausible arguments, might be part of a solid cumulative case for theism.
Second, the KCA doesn’t show that there is only one efficient cause of the universe. Why think that there is only one rather than a plurality of causes working together to bring about the universe?
Response: One might appeal to the principle of parsimony (i.e., Occam’s razor). Cetaris paribus, the simplest explanation is preferable. In other words, the best account is the one that posits the fewest entities sufficient to explain the relevant phenomenon. In this case, the defender of the KCA might contend that one cause of the universe is sufficient. We don’t need to posit many causes.
Third, the cause of the universe would seem to be causally associated with all of the suffering in the universe, not just its beginning and its intelligibility and structure. This objection raises the problem of evil (PoE).
Response. The PoE, in its probabilistic form, is a serious and reasonable objection to theism. But there are plausible responses to it. In short, as an inductive argument, the PoE fails to prove that theism is false. For the sake of time and space, I won’t say more about the PoE here except to note that I wrote my Ph.D. dissertation on this topic. Here is a brief summary. I’ll try to post more on this issue in the future.
Notes
[1] Kalam is an Arabic term which refers to the practice of philosophical theology. For a thorough discussion of the argument, see William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, “The Kalam Cosmological Argument,” in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012). See also William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, Third Edition, (Crossway, 2008), 111-156.
[2] To read the entire poem, see https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48860/the-raven.
The causation referred to in the KCA and in Poe’s poem is efficient causation. The tapping in the poem is not ex nihilo. The same point is made, mutatis mutandis, in an article at phys.org. On May 13, 2019, a team of scientists observed a flaring from Sagittarius A*, the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. The team has been observing the black hole for 20 years and has never seen a flaring like this one, which was 75 times brighter than normal. “The question is, what made Sgr. A* flare like this? At this point, astronomers aren’t certain what caused [my emphasis] the flaring.” Notice that this question presupposes that there was a cause of the flaring. It was not a flaring ex nihilo. To read the article, see https://phys.org/news/2019-08-milky-black-hole-flared-bright.html.
Again, the same point applies as follows: a few years ago, the ceiling in my home was developing a wet spot. I had four roofing companies come to my house to investigate. They disagreed on what the cause was. Some suspected a leak in the roof which allowed rainwater to drip through the attic onto our ceiling. Others hypothesized a leak in the A/C unit. But everyone agreed that there was a cause of the wet spot. Nobody believed that the wet spot appeared ex nihilo and for no reason. And each of the companies wanted to be hired to find the cause and fix the problem!
[3] Roderick Chisholm, Person and Object: A Metaphysical Study, (Open Court, 1979), 15-18.
[4] This is a modification of David Hilbert’s story about the infinite hotel.