Skip to main content

The Kalam Cosmological Argument


Scripture:Genesis 1:3

     A man was murdered. We know that there must have been a killer. A man falls from a tree. We know that something (gravity) must have pulled him down to the ground. A car starts running. We know that something (inserting and turning the key) must have led to the chain of events that caused the car to start.
     The above scenarios demonstrate an obvious principle of logic known as the Law of Causality. This principle, although often misunderstood, is actually quite simple. This principle states that everything that has begun to exist requires a cause. Although it is quite simple, this principle is the basis for one of the strongest arguments against atheism. This argument is known as The Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument is the subject of this post.


Overview

     Cosmos is a term that simply means universe. Kalam is a term that simply means argument. So the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument from and about the origin of the universe. This argument is used widely in Christian apologetics, simply due to the soundness of the argument. The argument can be summed up in this way:


I. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
II. The universe began to exist.
III. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


     This argument is possibly one of the most sound arguments for the existence of God. No one can claim that Premise I is incorrect without denying a principle of logic, and therefore making their response illogical. In the same way, no one can deny Premise II without denying many of the discoveries of modern science, and therefore making their argument anti-scientific. Since neither premise is false, the conclusion cannot be denied. Let's take an individual look at each premise.



Whatever Begins To Exist Has A Cause

     Nothing that begins to exist that does not have a reason why it began to exist. In other words, everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence. This is not only a foundation of logic, but it is also a foundation of scientific observation. However, many atheists have attacked this principle, but to no avail.
     The atheist, in his ever-desperate attempt to avoid a Creator, often misrepresents this argument. This misrepresentation is often, but not always, deliberate. The atheist may state that, for this statement to be true, then God needs a cause. As I have shown in my previous post (found here), Whoever caused the Big Bang must be eternal (since time had not yet come into existence), and therefore had no beginning. Rather, He must have always been. Since the Creator had no beginning and no end, He requires no cause.
    

"The Creator must be eternal, and therefore had no beginning....Since He had no beginning and no end, He requires no cause."


     Other theories have been offered in the attempt to avoid a Creator. However, these violate a scientific principle known as Occam's Razor, which prohibits multiplying entities beyond necessity. These other theories create more questions than answers. I also have yet to read one that doesn't simply move creation up a level, since every one of them would require something finite or something that would be required to be fine-tuned in order for the theory to work. A Creator is required for anything to exist at all.



The Universe Began To Exist

     Over the last century, science has discovered that the universe did have a beginning. The Christian position was not shocked by this. The atheistic position was, however. In the past, atheists could simply claim that the universe was eternal, and therefore required no cause. Recently, that statement has begun to change.
     Unless the atheist is willing to deny the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, he or she cannot deny that the universe had a definite beginning. This law states, among several other things, that entropy (going from an orderly state to a disorderly state) increases over time. This means that, if the universe was infinite, we would be in a completely disorderly state, and life would have already died out. This is only one proof among many that the universe did have a beginning, and is therefore finite.


The Conclusion

     Since we have seen that neither premise could be false, then we cannot deny the conclusion. The universe did, in fact, require an eternal Creator. To come to any conclusion other than this would make a person's argument either illogical or anti-science. Atheists sometimes get angry when this argument is brought up. However, being angry about the conclusion does not justify their position. It simply makes them intellectually dishonest.
     The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe requires a cause for its existence. This Cause must be eternal, immaterial, and spaceless. Is it any coincidence that this is what the Bible said over 3300 years before secular science discovered it? I do not think so. It simply cannot be coincidence.


Questions For Reflection

1.) Why could there not have been an infinite number of events that led to the creation of our universe? How does this show the folly of atheistic thinking?
2.) Why is it impossible for the universe to create itself? How does this type of atheistic thinking hurt science?
3.) Since we have seen that God did, in fact, create the universe, what does that say about miracles? How probable are they?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

5 Things That Are Best Explained By Theism

When discussing my faith with non-believers, I find that the average person is oblivious to the explanatory scope of theism. That is, God's existence explains several things that would be difficult to explain in any other way. In this post, I am not presenting any formal arguments, but am just pointing out what these things are. Arguments will be addressed in subsequent posts.

1. The Origin of the Universe

Neither atheism, nor alternative views of God can adequately explain the origin of the universe. Modern science has lead us to the conclusion that the space-time universe that we inhabit had a definite beginning some 14 billion years ago (give or take a little). The problem for the atheist comes when we realize that any contingent thing has an explanation for its existence that is not found within itself, and that if something had a beginning or could have failed to exist (which describes the universe), it is by its very nature contingent. Neither do other views of God adequatel…

7 Problems With "Lack-Theism" Atheism

In recent years, atheists have increasingly attempted to redefine the words "atheism" and "atheist". Now, rather than being the negative position on the question of God's existence, many atheists have redefined atheism to be a mere "lack of belief" in God. They do not seem to care that there was already a term for this position ("non-theism"). This is often done in an attempt to avoid the burden of proof that comes from taking the negative position on God's existence. Yet, in attempting to eliminate this burden of proof, the one who redefines atheism in this manner has jumped from the frying pan into the fire. Here are 7 reasons why this definition of atheism is problematic for those who use this definition:

1. It Is Rooted In The Etymological Fallacy

In order to justify this redefinition, many atheists will appeal to the etymology of the word "atheist." The term "atheist" comes from two Greek roots, "a-" me…

Why Does God Condemn Homosexuality?

Q: Why would God create someone as a homosexual and then condemn them to hell for all eternity for it?

A: This is a question that I have heard more than one person ask. I suspect that there are more who want to ask this question, but have not had the courage to ask me. I think it is important that we clarify a few points before we go any further. Let me begin this post by making a distinction between a person's sexual orientation and their actions. A person's sexual orientation is the individual's preference. A person can engage in actions contrary to their preference. Thus, we must draw a distinction between the two.

It is also vital that we understand what the Bible actually condemns. The reason that I drew the distinction above is so that I can make this point: the Bible does not condemn a person's orientation. My challenge to anyone on either side of this debate is to find a passage of Scripture that clearly condemns a person's orientation. Such a passage does n…