The Kalam Cosmological argument is used to show that God’s existence is more probable than not based on the universe beginning to exist. The argument goes like this:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise one is obvious to any seeker after truth but unfortunately atheists and agnostics will still question the first premise so let’s give a defense of that first premise.
The first reason in support of this premise is that something doesn’t just pop into existence but must have a cause. To suggest that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, you have a magician…not to mention the hat.
The second reason to believe the first premise is plausibly sound is because if something can come from nothing then why is it that we don’t observe other things popping into existence out of nothing. Why is it only universes can pop into existence out of nothing? Why don’t universes pop into existence in your own living room? What’s keeping a grizzly bear from popping into existence in your car while you’re driving? What about ice cream, Beethoven, bicycles and nuclear energy popping into existence out of nothing?
The third reason is that this is constantly confirmed through science and our personal experience. If we were to accept the notion that something can come from nothing, this would destroy most of what we know as science. Why is a dead guy in your living room? Oh he just popped into being out of nothing. That happens sometimes. What’s going on with those big bones buried in the ground? You mean those dinosaur bones? Oh they just popped into being out of nothing underground. What’s with all this lightning? Oh that pops into existence out of nothing sometimes. Let’s hope lightning won’t be inside the house.
Objections to the form of the argument
Objection 1: The Kalam Cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle.
Response 1: All the objector has done is describe the nature of a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, the conclusion is implicit in the premises, waiting to be derived by the rules of logical inference.
Objection 2: The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the first premise “cause” means “material cause,” while in the conclusion it does not.
Response 2: The fallacy of equivocation is using a word in the same context to mean two different things. For example:
- Socrates was Greek.
- Greek is a language.
- Therefore, Socrates is a language.
The conclusion results from equivocating on the meaning of the word “Greek.” Using it first to denote an ethnicity and later a language. In formulating the kalam cosmological argument, it refers to what Aristotle calls “efficient cause.” Aristotle distinguished between efficient causes and material causes. An efficient cause is what produces an effect in being, while a material cause is the stuff out of which a thing is made. For example, Michelangelo was the efficient cause of the statue of David, and the material cause of David was the block of marble that Michelangelo sculpted. So my claim is that whatever begins to exist has an efficient cause and therefore the universe has an efficient cause.
Objection 3: The first premise is based on the fallacy of composition. It fallaciously infers that because everything in the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe has a cause.
Response 3: The fallacy of composition means because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that same property. The problem is that I have never argued that because every part of the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe has a cause. Rather I gave three good reasons for thinking that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Specifically the third reason (personal experience and science) I gave is an appeal to inductive reasoning, not reasoning from composition.
Objection 4: If the universe began to exist, then it must have come from nothing. That is quite plausible, since there are no constraints on nothing, and so nothing can do anything, including producing the universe.
Response 4: The objector seems very confused about the use of the word “nothing.” When I say that nothing preceded the universe, one does not mean that something preceded it, and it was nothing. Rather we mean that it was not preceded by anything.
We’ll look at the defense and objections to the second premise and conclusion in later blog posts. For now, if you want to look deeper into this argument I recommend the following books listed below:
On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig
Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig
Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics edited by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig
God is Great, God is Good: Why Believing in God is Reasonable and Responsible edited by William Lane Craig and Chad Meister
The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland
