(by Heath McCasland)

1. What is the Kalām cosmological argument (KCA)?

A cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of a unique being, oftentimes referred to as God; this particular, modern cosmological argument is anchored in the Ilm al-Kalam heritage. The foremost proponent and creator of the KCA is William Lane Craig. The first premise of the cosmological argument follows a three-step flow of logic:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Craig expands upon this basic cosmological argument structure with a second premise that separates the KCA from other cosmological arguments (repeating the conclusion of the first premise as a basis for the second premise):

4. The universe has a cause.

5. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

6. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful

For the sake of clarity (and because the KCA is predicated upon it), we will be analyzing this particular cosmological argument under the assumption that the A-theory of time is accurate and the statement that “the universe began to exist” is accurate, meaning that events happen in chronological order. The alternate B-theory of time will not be a tool used to argue for or against the KCA in this essay.

2. Objections to the Kalām cosmological argument

There will be three primary objections to the KCA that we will go over, and then we will conclude while going over a few final thoughts on the argument.

2.1 “Who causes the First Cause?”

When I first began reading about cosmological arguments, I approached it with little knowledge of the vast variety of philosophical theories about how the universe began. I grew up in a southern Baptist Christian household, learning about the story of Creation, but in school I learned about the Big Bang model of the universe. The latter is still the prevailing cosmological model for the origins of the universe since it has the largest amount of scientific data backing it.

(Side note: a majority of scientists support the model because the data has been rigorously analyzed and continues to be rigorously analyzed. We, as non-professional scientists, should not go along with a model simply because “the scientists” do. When in doubt, ask for clarification, follow up on inaccuracies, and seek out the truth for yourself.)

My question for theists is this: if God, or some other unique being, caused the Big Bang, then who created God? It’s the classic ‘turtle or egg’ conundrum. Wait, that’s not right. It’s “chickens all the way down.” I swear the expression goes something like that. Whatever the case, the problem of infinite regress is age-old when discussing the origins of God and the universe. Craig makes it clear that God is “uncaused…timeless”, so it follows that Craig has ascribed certain qualities to the KCA’s first cause in order to skirt around the issue of infinite regress.

One counter-argument to this problem might go something like this: “Since God is infinite, or at least has qualities like ‘beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful,’ He doesn’t need to have a creator. He always existed, and so time and space did not exist until He made it exist.”

Let’s address that counter-argument. Imagine our universe as a set, and all of the objects within the universe are part of the universe’s subset. Objects within the universe (and the empty spaces between them) are scientifically observable, as is the universe itself. All humans are objects within this set. The KCA’s first premise has the potential to have sound logic because its claims are only addressing 1) “whatever begins to exist” (objects in the subset) and 2) “the universe” (the set). Where the KCA runs into major problems is the second premise, where Craig is addressing 1) “the universe” (the set), and 2) “an uncaused, personal Creator…” (unobservable object outside of the set).

So who caused the First Cause? We do not know. There is currently no method of observation for objects outside of the set we call the universe. The first premise in the KCA, used in other cosmological arguments, makes sense because cause and effect make sense. Beyond that, we humans are speculating. So, if we’re going to speculate, why should Craig be the only one?

2.2 The premise is limited by its creator

Atheist philosopher Michael Martin was a critic of Craig’s KCA. Although I did not read his book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, I found an excerpt from his book that sheds light on the way that the KCA premises are set up:

“…it should be obvious that Craig’s conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, this Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation.”

Martin makes an interesting point. Seeing as the identity of the universe’s cause is indeterminate, we can make the creator(s) whoever we want him/her/it/them to be. Five timeless, all-powerful dogs playing poker? Sure. A carnivorous, causeless island of algae? Yeah, why not. How about an edge-less, limitless pool of sentient shape-shifters? That could work, too. I could be obnoxious for the sake of it and continue to list any number of examples, but I will spare you from that fate for now.

Craig’s effort in giving the KCA’s Creator the qualities necessary to exist outside of space-time, without the need to respirate, hold a shape, or follow the logic of our universe is wholly antithetical to the argument given that Craig has based the idea of this Creator on qualities and logic known only to exist in our own universe. The only adjective that can be used in the second premise is “unknowable.”

The second premise, rewritten using what we’ve learned from Martin’s rebuttal and my own, would look something like this:

7. The universe has a cause.

8. If the universe has a cause, then an unknowable Creator or Creators of said universe may exist, who sans the universe is/are unknowable;

Therefore:

9. An unknowable Creator or Creators of the universe may exist, who sans the universe is/are unknowable.

2.3 Big Bang cosmology

For some cosmologists and physicists, the KCA is not simply objectionable, it is outright refutable. According to theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli and others, the questions of ‘who created the universe’ and ‘what came before the universe’ are not applicable questions.

“One finds that time just disappears from the Wheeler-DeWitt equation…the Big Bang theory states that [the Big Bang] is the point in which all dimensions came into existence, the start of both space and time…the concept of “before” becomes meaningless when considering a situation without time.” (Gott III et al, Scientific American, March 1976)

There is not a lot that I can say to elaborate on Big Bang cosmology, as I am not a cosmologist, physicist, or even a professional scientist for that matter. Given the information we have here, what I can say is that the KCA is weakened. Although Craig describes a theoretical Creator as “timeless”, it would be impossible for an entity to exist before the Big Bang under its cosmological rules that have space and time beginning simultaneously.

3. Conclusion

The Kalam cosmological argument is, I concede, one of the most convincing arguments I have read in favor of a supernatural entity. Craig does not rely on dogma, religious texts, or outrageously baseless claims to support his argument. The KCA is modern, logical up to a point, and is a step in the right direction for theists to increase the credibility of theism. The chosen words in the first premise are simple and logical, but the choice of words in the second premise are verbose and appeal to an audience’s sense of empathy and wonder. The heart of the KCA is in the right place, but it doesn’t need more heart, it needs more doubt.