What do you think of the kalam cosmological argument for God's existence?

Question

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

I think most answers given to this question have overlooked the fact that the argument is a lot more complicated than I have presented here. Additionally, the major premise is not simply based on a priori considerations or judgments. One can derive the major premise by means of a posteriori reasoning. I would encourage you all to read about the kalam cosmological argument in William Lane Craig's book with the same title. Thanks.

Some of the best cosmological evidence we have at our disposal informs us that the universe did begin to exist. See Robert Jastrow's book _God and the Astronomers_. Jastrow (for the record) is an agnostic.

Dear alpha:

I think you are still overlooking certain key aspects of the kalam cosmological argument. But these are my final comments on the matter. First, the kalam cosmological argument (as far as I can see) does not say that a causal relationship between an omnipotent God and the universe MUST exist. It simply contends that the universe either had a beginning or no beginning, is caused or uncaused, and that the cause of the universe is either personal or impersonal.

Furthermore the kalam argument does not state that the personal cause of the universe is synonymous with the God of Judaism, Christianity or Islam. It simply posits that "the world had its beginning by the act of a person" (J.P. Moreland). But any personal cause that can bring it about that the universe exists must be worthy of the appellation "maximally excellent being."

Put simply, every house has a maker; the universe is more complex than a house. Surely the universe also has a maker (Hebrews 3:4)

One other comment, alpha. I would rather be an interdependent thinker than an independent one. Thinking does not occur in a vacuum. Whatever Sir Isaac Newton meant by the statement, there seems to be truth in the words "If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants." Using one's own head and consulting learned tomes are not mutually exclusive activities.

Answer 1

It is not a good argument. It asserts without evidence that the universe 'began' to exist. Isn't it possible in principle that the universe has always existed?

By the way, I do believe in God. But this doesn't strike me as a good argument for that belief.

Answer 2

Some problems I see with this argument.

Before I start, I would like to clarify my definition of God (to the best of my ability). And the primary element that I would like to clarify is sentience. Though some entity may exist that is powerful to the extent to be god-like, it can't to my mind be God, unless it is sentient.

A) The initial assumption that the universe began to exist. It is possible that it has always.

B) Following that, what proof is there that even if the universe did "begin" at some point, that whatever caused the beginning of the universe was an individual act chosen by a sentient God being?

C) The universe must have a cause, has been dealt with already (because it very well might not). However, the implications of that statement to my mind, suggest the question, then, does the universe have a purpose? And, the inability of the theorum to adequetely address this question, and the inability to prove or disprove the negative answer, to my mind further undermines the argument.

BTW -- I am a Christian and I do believe in God.

Answer 3

I agree with the answers you have received so far. The argument begs its answer.

Look, no argument "for" (or even "against") the existence of "God" can be based on a priori axioms. As a case in point consider the following example:

1. Everything that begins to exist must have 16 causes.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have 16 causes.

Do you see the flaw as demonstrated by the counterexample?

Here is another:

1. Everything that begins to exist may NOT have a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe may NOT have a cause.

Well, I am sure you are getting the idea. ... Logically speaking, they are all undecidable propositions.

But the problem does NOT even end there. There is no reason (beyond a trivial human logic), for instance, to assume that an "Omnipotent God" should be causally "related" to the Universe.




*** Additional Comments:

Yes, the universe (to which you so casually refer to, as though it was something that we had a complete description of) most likely did have a “beginning” - in the same sense that “time itself” had a beginning. Even lexis such as “begin”, “began”, “exist”, and “cause” all inherently imply a sense of time-like dimensionality. The problem is not merely your a priori or posteriori (or otherwise) reasoning or even the fact that you are arbitrarily mixing and matching all kinds of undecidable propositions (some of which not only matters of faith, but mutually exclusive conjectures) as axiomatic truths. The real problem (as I pointed out earlier) is that even if we take your so-called kalam cosmological argument on face value you are still left with at least the following intrinsic logical undecidables:

1- There is no reason (a priori, posteriori, or otherwise) to assume and/or deduce that there MUST exist a causal relationship between an “Omnipotent God” and the “Universe” coming into (dimensional) existence.
2- Even if the universe had a causal beginning, it is NOT at all a given that such a cause should be equated with the religious/theological notion of God. Unless of course you are making a simple statement PURELY based on faith, and not any kind of logical assertion.
3- The coming of the universe into dimensional existence, says nothing about its non-dimensional state of Being (or Is-ness, or even Nothingness, if you like) prior to the Big Bang Singularity giving rise to the observable universe. You are making “causal” assumptions against a non-existing time-like (or otherwise dimensionality) background for the argument.
4- For all we know there may or may not be an infinite number of parallel/unobservable universes (some perhaps even with their own completely independent history/beginning) at which point a kalam causal argument would lead to the anomalous possibility (even religiously speaking) of the existence of “Multiple Gods”.

One can, of course, extend other equally valid objections against a kalam type argument (and btw, NO, the kalam argument is NOT a profound statement about the existence of God, in any shape or form, whatsoever). … Finally, if I may: You seem to have an inquisitive mind, so PLEASE do yourself a favor, put those books aside and do your own independent thinking, my friend.

Answer 4

I can think of more persuasive arguments this. Besides, this doesn't really address the existence of a god. Even if you accept the argument, it does not exclude other causes for the universe. In the end, the only statement really being made is that the universe must have a cause and not what specific cause that might be.

Answer 5

Statements 1 and 2 are a priori assumptions. Therefore the validity of statement 3 cannot be derived from 1 and 2.

Answer 6

Not much. The regression is flawed. Even if the universe must have a cause, why would that cause be god? An easily refuted " god of the regressive gap argument ".