A critical examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

2009 March 15
more by

Podcast: Download

By Nicholas Covington
Article ID: 1312

The Kalam Cosmological Argument was popularized by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, and it has become the most widely discussed argument for God’s existence in contemporary philosophy[1]. These three points make up the Kalam:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

On first glance we might object that the cause of the universe doesn’t have to be anything like a person. But Craig has thoroughly demolished this objection: If there were a mechanical, impersonal cause which created time, it must have existed eternally. But if it had existed eternally, it would have been creating universes from eternity past. This would lead to the conclusion that there were an infinite number of universes, which Craig argues is absurd (more on this later). Therefore, the cause of the universe must have been a free agent who could choose to create only one universe. I find that I agree: If Craig’s premises are true, then his conclusion that a personal being caused the universe makes sense[2].

“Everything that begins to exist has a cause”

The problem is that the premises of his argument are not true. His first premise, “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” collapses in light of our understanding of quantum mechanics. For example, scientists have found that particles of energy may come into existence, completely uncaused, in empty space[3]. Another exception to the Law of Cause and Effect is found in the decay of Carbon-14 atoms: After every interval of 5730 years, half of the Carbon-14 present in a given measurement will have decayed into Nitrogen-14. All of these carbon atoms are identical, yet they decay at different times. Why is this? If all the atoms are exactly the same, shouldn’t they decay at precisely the same time? Since they do not, most scientists have come to believe that atomic decay is spontaneous (and therefore uncaused)[4].

Craig responds to this charge by arguing that although some quantum events appear to be uncaused, they still have certain necessary preconditions before they can occur[5]. My objection to this is that these quantum events are still uncaused, even if, for example, quantum fluctuations can only occur in a quantum vacuum. On the other side of the coin, we still must recognize that many quantum events certainly aren’t necessitated by some earlier state. Could it be that the universe was a completely spontaneous thing whose existence is completely independent of whatever existed before? Until Craig proves otherwise, he has not made his case.

The first premise is further undermined from the fact that we simply do not have any experience of things really “beginning to exist”. We may think that we have witnessed popcorn “begin to exist” after we put a bag of it in the microwave, but in reality we have only witnessed the kernels change states from un-popped to popped. In all our experience the creation of something requires pre-existing materials. The closest humanity has come to seeing something “begin to exist” from nothing is through indirect observations of energy particles coming into existence completely uncaused (the previously mentioned “quantum fluctuations”). Once again, Craig must show that the universe could not possibly have been something spontaneous if his argument is to succeed.

“The universe began to exist”

The second premise, “The universe began to exist,” is indisputable in one sense and problematic in another. It is indisputable because scientists have made an excellent case that our universe did have a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in the Big Bang. It is problematic because the fact that our universe had a beginning does not mean that physical existence as a whole (What I refer to as the ‘Metaverse’; Meaning all which exists[6]) had a beginning. For example, some cosmologists believe that our universe began in the black hole of another universe. If this is true, then it may be that there always were universes giving rise to even more universes through black holes.

Craig’s objection to scenarios such as the one above is to argue that an actual infinity cannot logically exist. Here’s an example illustrating Craig’s usual line of argumentation:

“Imagine a library with an infinite number of books. Suppose that half of the books are blue and half of them are green, so that for every blue book there is a green book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many green books as the total books in its collection (an infinity), and as many blue books as green and blue books combined (also an infinity). But this is absurd. Therefore, actual infinities cannot exist.”

This is Craig’s argument, and the reason I (and many other philosophers) believe it fails is because finite numbers cannot be expected to behave as infinite numbers[7], rendering moot the claimed “absurdity” of an actual infinite.

“Therefore, the universe had a cause”

It is also highly problematic to conclude that the universe itself had a cause just because everything within the universe has a cause. The law of cause and effect may hold inside the universe (if we turn a blind eye to radioactive decay and quantum physics), but why should we expect it to be true outside of the universe? A related argument is that God, if he exists outside of time (as Craig supposes), could not cause the universe to exist because causation is a temporal concept (causation requires time)[8].

Yet another nail in the coffin of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is uncovered by turning Craig’s own reasoning against him. He argues this way: since everything which begins to exist has a cause, the universe must have a cause since it had its own beginning. Yet he ignores the fact that every personal being we have ever encountered has an observable physical body. Does that mean that there cannot be a great spirit being like Craig thinks? I imagine if Craig had to answer this question he would tell us that while all the minds within the universe have bodies, there is no reason to accept that this is true outside of the universe. Fair enough. But Craig must either accept that the law of cause and effect only applies inside the universe, in which case his argument is destroyed, or accept that a mind cannot exist without a body, in which case his argument is also destroyed.

The only way for Craig to get out from under this objection is by arguing that the causal principle is not a physical law (like the law of gravity) but a metaphysical law[9]. He must argue that the causal principle holds for anything and everything, regardless of any physical properties. But a “metaphysical law” is clearly false, as we have seen previously: it does not hold in the case of quantum physics[10].

Craig has not at all justified his metaphysical laws: He simply ridicules the idea that the universe could begin without a predecessor, calling it “worse than magic”[11]. However, using Craig’s own logic, having an infinitely-existing creator without a predecessor is just as ridiculous.

Endnotes

(1) Quentin Smith, “Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism” Page 183, The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press 2007.

(2) This conclusion is only true if the so-called “Libertarian” account of free will is correct, which I will argue is not only false but incoherent. If I am successful, it will drive yet another nail in the coffin of the Kalam argument.

(3) http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm
Also see “Creation Ex Nihilo – Without God” by Mark Vuletic
Both accessed 1/02/09

(4) Pages 123-125, Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis, Prometheus Books 2007.

(5) http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/smith.html
Accessed 1/02/09

(6) The word “Universe” once meant “all which exists”. However, as Theoretical Physics evolved, Physicists have chosen to speak of “Parallel Universes” to describe regions of spacetime which are completely separate from our own. This is why I have chosen to use the word ‘Metaverse’ to describe “all which exists”. I find that it helps avoid confusion.

(7) The Philosopher Wes Morriston has written several journal articles on the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including a few on the possibility of an actual infinite. Many of them can be found online:
Accessed 12/31/08

(8) In an online debate with Atheist Theodore Drange, Pastor Douglas Wilson wrote, “How can a being outside time do any thinking at all? Beats me.”
Accessed 12/31/08

(9) This is precisely what Craig argues in “Must the Beginning of the Universe have a Personal Cause? A Rejoinder”
Accessed 1/06/09

(10) For an excellent review of this and many other objections to the Kalam, I recommend the essay “Professor William Craig’s Criticisms of Critiques of Kalam Cosmological Arguments By Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, And Adolf Grünbaum” by Graham Oppy, 1995.
Accessed 1/08/09

(11) Page 99, Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004.


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Philosophy, Religion

12 Comments
2009 March 16
TimB permalink

What if time is nothing more than an emergent property of our particular universe and not fundamental at all? In that circumstance, the idea of an infinite regression through eternity becomes meaningless. Although this idea might sound absurd, it is postulated in some currently researched theories of quantum gravity.

The fact that we, as humans, can ‘t conceive of how something (infinity, effect without cause, etc) can possibly be, is more a reflection of our own intellectual limitations, than a limitation on what is possible, given a large enough statistical sample. There are things we don’t know, and there are probably things that we will never know; That doesn’t mean we therefore attribute those things to “God”. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because I can’t explain it, God must be responsible. The reality is I’m probably just not smart enough.

2009 March 17
Josh Walker permalink

Even if the universe has a creator that used the evolutionary process, that doesn’t mean that creator is a god. God implies worship, but power does not necessitate worth of worship, in fact I cannot think of anything that makes one worthy of worship. One might argue that goodness or righteousness makes one worthy of worship, but a good and righteous being that deserved worship would not demand it. In fact they would have to denounce it, or they would stop being good and become a tyrant.

Therefore, even if the universe has a creator, it is not a “god”, and it is most definitely not the Christian god.

2009 March 18
TimB permalink

Josh, Your belief that such a God is not worthy of worship does not necessitate a conclusion that denies his existence. This is a logically flawed argument which I have pointed out in multiple places on this forum.

As humans with a finite ability to process information, or with a finite AMOUNT of information, we are not capable of making an assessment of Gods perfection or imperfection, How can you presume to know the mind of such a god? Arguing against a deity on the basis that he offends our sensibilities (which are subjective) is a waste of time. We may well decide not to worship such a being, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.

I vehemently disagree with Theists. I have been offered no incontrovertible evidence of either the necessity nor the existence of a deity; but I don’t want to engage in a moral critique of their particular god, becaus I don’t believe it adds anything to the debate. From my perspective, the argument resides at a fundamental question : Based on the evidence, does logical analysis dictate the necessity of god (deity, supreme being, creator, et.al), in order that existence be explained (note I did not say “given meaning”). ?

2009 March 21
matthew permalink

Im wondering if the argument about the impossibility of an actual infinity does not apply. Lets assume an actual infinity of objects cannot exist. A universe containing a finite number of objects can still exist for an infinite period.

But can an actual infinite number of ‘events’ exist? Seeing as events occur after one another, we need only be concerned with the number of events that are happening at this instant – events in the past dont ‘exist’ any more than events in the future. And if the number of objects in the universe is finite then the number of events happening at this instant is also finite.

Im thinking Mr Craig is glossing over a few details in his formulation of the cosmological argument. I’d appreciate any comments -it is very late here and my brain might not be working properly.

2009 March 27
smelly girl permalink

Kalam in reverse?
1. God did not have a cause (according to theists)
2. God did not BEGIN to exist at some point (according to theists)
3. Therefore, God does not exist (my conclusion per Kalam argument in reverse)

2009 June 20
NS permalink

I think the most frequently ignored yet simple a obvious problem with Craig’s argument is that premise number one is an equivocation.

Think about what we mean by “begin to exist”.

If a “bronze statue begins to exist” we are not claiming that the statue was created ex nihilo. The bronze existed before it was formed into the statue. We we normally think of things “coming into existance” we do not mean that the matter came into existance. We mean that some matter changed it’s form but in compliance with the law of conservation no new matter was created.

But when Craig says god created the universe “began to exist” he is literally saying that God created the univese ex nihilo (which in its self is a huge logical dilemma which he just Craig ignores). He is not using “begin to exist” in the sense above but rather in the sense that the matter literally began to exist.

As such the form of the first premise does not retain form but rather changes as the argument progresses. The argument is a sleight of hand, nothing more.

The other problem is of course that he claims that the Universe was created out of nothing. This is a objectification of nothing which is not logicaly sound but is quite amusing. It means that the Universe is composed of nothing and therefore does not exist.

2009 August 15
mortimer duke permalink

I find Craig’s argument to be the most modernly convincing proof of God’s existence in cosmological terms, and I find no dilemma in creatio ex nihilo since the idea that something cannot arise from nothing; that would involve a contradiction (comparing ex nihilo fit). Therefore something must always have existed. But it is scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed. Moreover, matter is contingent: it is not logically impossible for it not to exist, and nothing else depends on it. Hence it is logically valid to deduce a creator, non-contingent and not composed of matter: God.

2009 August 16
Ryan permalink

Mortimer,

You say that matter is contingent. I assume this is because it is not obvious how matter could be necessary (correct me if I’m wrong). But I don’t find it obvious at all how an invisible person could be necessary.

Also, how is it a contradiction that something could come from nothing?

2009 August 16
TimB permalink

In reference to Mortimer Duke’s Comments:
The entire argument is flawed. On what basis is the contention that matter arising from nothing a contradiction? Matter arises from nothing everyday. This is best exemplified by the creation of  virtual particles; this has been measured experimentally, and is responsible for the Casimir effect. Netwonian dynamics (upon which Craigs proof seems to rely), is only an approximation at the macroscopic level. At the quantum mechanical scale it doesn’t apply; to wit, something CAN arise from nothing. Therefore the foundation upon which he makes is argument falls apart.
Drawing the conclusion that because we can not logically get our heads around an idea, God must exist, is an inherently flawed rationale.  It’s just moving the debate one step back.  A proof of God’s existence must arise from positvie evidence.  If we look at what attributes this God must have, we then look for the unambiguous existence of the evidence that would be a result of those attributes, and which can not be explained by something more prosaic.

2009 December 8
Ed permalink

Mortimer,
Can you explain further? First, where is the proof that it is “scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed”. Why? We know that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed. Given that, what evidence is there that its existence is contingent?
Second, since the big bang is linked with a massive singularity, it would seem that our universe started with plenty of energy/matter. Theory holds that time and space begin with the big bang. Why is it not possible that both time and space are contingent upon energy/matter? If time depends on it, then energy/matter could well be the one thing which necessarily exists. What rules this out?

2009 December 27
Van Martin permalink

DBSkeptic
I think you may be too hasty in agreeing with Craig that a mechanical cause of time and space will necessarily result in a past eternal universe. As long as the mechanical cause creates time, then time will have a beginning and therefore can NEVER be past eternal.
But looking at the problem from Craig’s side of the fence, I don’t believe postulating a timeless (and persoanl) cause gets Craig what he wants. For if Kalam CA suggests that only a personal cause could cause something to be created in time, and with a finite past, then we have the problem of at what time does this personal cause decide to create the universe. Of course, it cannot decide to create the universe at this or that time, since the universe must be created ALONG with time. Craig is really assuming an eternal past of time in oreder to justify his conclusion that a mechanical cause of time must be beginningless, which is blatantly contradictory, or at least so it appears to me.
Would love to hear other thoughts on this, rushed objection to the personal causal prinicipal, as I don’t hear it discussed much, but find it to be as problematic as any sub-argument of Craig’s masterfully crafted cosmological argument.
 

2010 January 24
Carneades permalink

On the one hand  WLC denies the potential infinity by successive additin, because one never can arrive at infinity,but that is the nature of infinity! On the other hand, Covington, it is day to day, each arriving  on time as Aquinas, who himself begs his five questions, and Kyle Williams note, unless as WLC in begging the question, with a starting  point.
Yes, matter accrues through the quantum fluctuations in perhaps by quantum tunneling or by buds or  brains.
Yes, the ignostic challenge discredits any anthropomorphic or  metaphysical God, as they all depend on His incoherent attributes, contradictory to each  other, not just the  latter type of God a sPaul Edwards claim s in ” The Encyclopedia of Philosophy,”What a wonderful man, and read it and his   book on God.

Comments are closed for this entry.