The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This premise, often called the Causal Principle, comes from our everyday experience and scientific understanding. Craig says it is an obvious metaphysical truth. We see that objects and events in the natural world do not appear without a cause. From a tree growing to a supernova exploding, every new entity or change has a prior cause. Denying this premise would lead to skepticism that undermines philosophy and scientific inquiry, which aims to find causes for observed effects. Craig stresses that this principle applies to things that ...

This premise is essential for the Kalam argument to conclude something specific about the universe's origin. Craig supports it with two types of arguments: philosophical points against an actual infinite, and scientific evidence. Philosophically, he argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality because it leads to absurdities (e.g., Hilbert's Hotel paradox). If the universe had an infinite past, an infinite number of events would have had to pass to reach the present, which is impossible. Scientifically, the Big Bang theory, ...

This is the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause. This conclusion is a deductive necessity. Craig argues that denying this conclusion, if the premises are true, is a logical error. The implications are significant: if the universe has a cause, that cause exists outside the universe, beyond space, time, and matter. It cannot be an event or entity within the universe, because the universe itself is what is being exp...

After showing that the universe has a cause, Craig looks at the attributes of this 'First Cause'. Since the cause brought space and time into existence, it must exist outside of space and time. This means it is spaceless and timeless. Also, since matter and energy began with the universe, the cause is immaterial. Its ability to create the cosmos suggests great power. Craig argues that such a cause is uncaused; otherwise, we would have an infinite regress of causes, which he has shown to be impossible. This leads to the idea of a nec...

Craig focuses on the philosophical problems of an actual infinite. He distinguishes between a 'potential infinite' (a series that can extend indefinitely but is never complete, like counting) and an 'actual infinite' (a complete set with an infinite number of members). He argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality because it leads to logical absurdities. Hilbert's Hotel is a classic example: a hypothetical hotel with infinite occupied rooms. A new guest can be accommodated by moving every guest to the next room (guest 1 to...

Beyond philosophical arguments, Craig uses scientific consensus to support the universe's beginning. The Big Bang theory is the main cosmological model, stating that the universe began from a very hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago and has been expanding since. Evidence like the cosmic microwave background radiation, the redshift of distant galaxies (Hubble's Law), and the abundance of light elements all support this model. Also, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the entropy (disorder) of a closed system always inc...

Craig addresses common counter-arguments against a cosmic beginning, such as multiverse theories or oscillating/cyclic universe models. He argues that even these scenarios usually still need a first cause. Many multiverse models, for example, suggest a 'meta-universe' or 'multiverse generator' that itself had a beginning. Similarly, oscillating universe models, which propose Big Bangs and Big Crunches, face theoretical challenges, including increasing entropy across cycles (each cycle would be larger and longer, eventually leading to ...

This is a bold, yet logically sound, step in Craig's argument. If the cause of the universe is timeless and changeless, how can it produce a temporal effect (the universe's beginning)? An impersonal cause (like a physical law or conditions) would, if sufficient, eternally produce its effect. For example, if water freezes below 0°C, then water would eternally be frozen if the temperature were eternally below 0°C. So, for a timeless cause to produce a temporal effect, it must be an agent with free will who chooses to create the effe...

A common objection to the Kalam argument is, 'If everything has a cause, then who caused God?' Craig says this question misrepresents the first premise. The premise is not 'Everything has a cause,' but 'Whatever begins to exist has a cause.' Since the First Cause (God) is argued to be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful, it is by definition an uncreated, eternal being that does not begin to exist. Therefore, the question of its cause is irrelevant to the entity being discussed. The First Cause is the end point for the ...