All of them say something like this:

1. The universe had a beginning
2. This needs an explanation/cause
3. The best explanation is a first cause/prime mover (God)

Such arguments go back to Plato and Aristotle. They were developed by Islamic scholars in the 10^th to 12^th centuries and later taken up by Thomas Aquinas, Descartes and Leibniz. Hume and Kant subjected them to fierce criticism, and most philosophers today view them sceptically.[i]

But in recent decades, there has been something of a revival. The most talked about version is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, so called because of the debt it owes to Islamic scholars. Today, its most prominent proponent is American philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig.

Craig is a conservative Christian but not a fundamentalist. His knowledge of the latest developments in science is formidable. His intellect and robust debating style have earned him the respect of prominent atheists,[ii] though he has been accused of cherry picking scientific data and acting more like a politician making a case than a scientist or philosopher examining evidence.[iii]

THE KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Craig formulates the argument thus:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
4. No scientific laws can provide a causal account of the very beginning of the universe.
5. Therefore the cause must be a non-natural personal agent (God).

Below, I will examine Craig’s premises and conclusions and some of the main objections to them.

1. EVERYTHING THAT BEGINS TO EXIST HAS A CAUSE

Note that the argument is framed as everything that begins to exist. This means that, “Yeah, but what caused God?” is not a suitable response, since theists claim that God has always existed.[iv]

Craig insists that our everyday experience confirms that everything that begins to exist has a cause,[v] which is an odd thing to claim, since everyday experience also tells us that the sun goes round the earth.

A more serious objection is that quantum mechanics has loosened causality, and most scientists now believe that, at least at the quantum level, some events are purely random.[vi] Craig counters that even if the timing and exact location of quantum events are uncaused, the events themselves do have a cause. It should also be noted that some interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic and exclude genuine randomness, for example Everett’s many worlds theory and David Bohm’s hidden variables.[vii]

Jonathan David Garner suggests another objection to the cosmological argument: everything that begins to exist has a material cause. This, he says, rules out an immaterial God.[viii]

2. THE UNIVERSE BEGAN TO EXIST

Craig makes two different arguments here. The first is that in principle the universe must have had a beginning. The second is that science has proven that the universe had a beginning.

In Principle the Universe Must Have Had a Beginning

Infinity, according to Craig, is impossible. So the universe cannot be infinitely old. He claims that this is intuitively obvious, though the obvious counter to this is that intuition is a very poor guide to advanced mathematics.[ix]

Craig backs up his claim with a discussion of the Hilbert Hotel, a thought experiment devised in 1925 by German mathematician David Hilbert. The Hilbert Hotel has an infinite number of rooms filled by an infinite number of guests. If more guests check in, the hotel can accommodate them, but the number of guests and rooms remains the same. How can that be?

Even more absurd, if all the guests in the infinite number of odd-numbered rooms check out, there will still be an infinite number of guests in the hotel. But if all the guests in the rooms number four or above check out, there will be just three guests. So the same number of guests check out each time, but a different number of guests remains in the hotel. This, says Craig, is metaphysically impossible.[x]

However, while this thought experiment is designed to show that infinite numbers are paradoxical and difficult for our finite minds to grasp, David Hilbert firmly believed that it didn’t show that they are incoherent or impossible.[xi] He accepted that Cantorian mathematics can clear up the problems his thought experiment illustrates.[xii] It strikes me as slightly disingenuous of Craig to use this thought experiment without mentioning this.

Philosopher Graham Priest dismisses Craig’s claim that infinity is metaphysically impossible: “Mathematicians aren’t interested in metaphysics. They’re interested in mathematics.” He insists that infinity is not only mathematically possible; it is physically possible too.

It should be pointed out that Craig’s opposition to infinity is not consistent. He believes in an infinite afterlife and, when it suits his argument, he cites theories which accept the idea of a singularity (an infinite curvature of space-time) or which assume that space is infinite.[xiii]

Craig’s Scientific Proof: 1 – The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that processes taking place in a closed system always tend towards a more disordered state (entropy always tends to increase). This is regarded by many as one of the most fundamental laws of nature,[xiv] and it is generally agreed that the low entropy of the universe just after the Big Bang remains something of a mystery.

Craig’s videos say the universe is slowly becoming more disordered (“running out of usable energy”), and if it had existed for eternity, it would have completely run out of usable energy by now.[xv]

However, there are a number of possible explanations for this. For example, maybe entropy is potentially infinite – it can increase forever. If so, it will always seem low compared to the potential maximum. Alternatively, our universe might be a fluctuation in a larger multiverse, and its entropy clock was reset at the time of the Big Bang.[xvi]

Craig’s Scientific Proof: 2 – Big Bang Cosmology

I suspect that one of the reasons the Kalam Cosmological Argument is so popular among Christian apologists is that it and Big Bang cosmology seem to coincide with the Christian doctrine of creation out of nothing. For Craig, this is exactly what the Big Bang represents.[xvii]

However, there is no scientific consensus on whether the Big Bang represents an absolute beginning. Instead, there are a number of competing models that attempt to describe the Big Bang and what came before it (if anything can be said to have come before it). Some models involve a single universe created from nothing. Others involve a multiplicity of universes, or an eternal series of universes punctuated by Big Bangs. At present, we simply do not know which, if any, of these models is nearest to the truth.[xviii]

Craig cites research by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin which, he says, proves that our universe has a beginning. He quotes Vilenkin as saying scientists “can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[xix]

However, in a recent interview,[xx] Vilenkin refuses to commit himself regarding whether or not the universe has a beginning (I suspect he thinks it does, but he certainly doesn’t think the point is proven). For his part, Vilenkin’s colleague Alan Guth says he thinks the universe probably doesn’t have a beginning.[xxi]

What Craig has done is to tie his argument to a particular view of the Big Bang. This is risky, since Big Bang cosmology is a speculative and ever-changing field. In 10 or 20 years’ time, he may find that this aspect of his argument has been confirmed. It is equally possible that a dominant “eternal universe” paradigm may have emerged, leaving the Kalam cosmological argument stranded.[xxii]

(For Edward Fraser, this wouldn’t matter. Even if the universe is eternal, it still needs a fundamental explanation, and the best explanation is God.)[xxiii]

3. THEREFORE THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE

This is disputed.

Why only one cause? Why not two, three, four or multiple causes? The idea that there must only be one cause is not supported by the premise.[xxiv]

The cosmological argument posits God as the uncaused cause of the universe. But ever since the 18^th century, atheists have been asking why the universe itself can’t be considered an uncaused cause.

Bertrand Russell concurred. For him, the universe just is. It is a “brute fact” that needs no explanation.[xxv] Physicist Carlo Rovelli agrees: “We don’t need the notion of causes to describe the fundamental nature of reality.”[xxvi]

David Hume said the cosmological argument fell victim to the fallacy of composition. Sometimes you don’t need to describe the whole; you only need to describe the parts.[xxvii] Paul Edwards gives an example to illustrate the point.

There are five Eskimos in New York:

• Eskimo A went to live there because she hates the cold.
• Eskimo B is married to A and went to be with her.
• Eskimo C is their child and didn’t have much choice in the matter.
• Eskimo D saw an ad for an Eskimo to appear on TV.
• Eskimo E is a private detective hired to keep an eye on Eskimo D.

So, each of them has a reason to go to New York. But what is the reason why all five of them went there?

The question has no meaning.

(It should, however, be noted that Hume’s fallacy of composition argument is considered weak by many philosophers.)[xxviii]

4. NO SCIENTIFIC LAWS CAN PROVIDE A CAUSAL ACCOUNT OF THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE

So far, this is true. The laws of classical physics, including general relativity, break down as we approach the Big Bang. The only existing theory that might be applicable is quantum mechanics, but there is so much we simply don’t know.[xxix] Craig’s point is that in principle, no scientific laws will ever explain the origins of our universe, because all such laws are part of the universe and the cause is external.[xxx]

Given the history of scientific progress, it would seem to me that saying science will never discover something is a bold claim to make. However, scientists aren’t currently looking for a causal account of the beginning of the universe. They are attempting to create coherent mathematical models that make testable predictions.[xxxi]

5. THEREFORE THE CAUSE MUST BE A NON-NATURAL PERSONAL AGENT (GOD).

Is this not a classic case of a God-of-the-gaps argument? We don’t know, therefore God.

Many defenders of the cosmological argument will agree that, by itself, it doesn’t prove that the creator of the universe must be a personal agent.[xxxii] If you want a metaphysical explanation, why not something impersonal like the Tao in Chinese philosophy or attributes like the Hindu gunas interacting with spirit to create the world?[xxxiii]

Equally, even if the universe was created by a personal agent, do we have any reason to believe that agent must continue to sustain it after creation, or even that this personal agent continues to exist?[xxxiv]

Richard Swinburne wields Occam’s razor and claims that God wins out as the simplest explanation. But his fellow philosopher Graham Oppy disagrees, saying theism posits two kinds of explanation, the natural and the supernatural, whereas naturalism posits only one, the natural. So if you are using Occam’s razor, naturalism is the simpler explanation.

Paul Davis suggests that a purely scientific explanation will be found within the cosmic system itself. To this, William Lane Craig counters that, in that case, the cosmic system needs explaining (see THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE above).[xxxv]

For physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll, the Kalam Cosmological Argument’s conclusion is “not even false”. He says that this kind of Aristotelian analysis of causation may have been cutting edge thousands of years ago, but things have moved on. In physics textbooks, you won’t find discussion of transcendent causation; you will find differential equations. Scientists are trying to create mathematically coherent models of the early universe that fit the data and make predictions that can be tested.

The demand for more than that, he says, is a relic of the pre-scientific world.[xxxvi]

My conclusion from all of the above is that the Kalam Cosmological Argument may ask an interesting question but it faces strong objections at every turn. All of its premises are disputed and its conclusions are not supported by its premises. The bar for philosophical proof is very high and there is no sense in which the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be said to meet the standard required.

---

[i] Reichenbach, Bruce, “Cosmological Argument”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), forthcoming URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/cosmological-argument/&gt; (accessed 11/06/2024).

[ii] Quoted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig (accessed 11/06/2024).

[iii] Physicist Niayesh Afshordi in Halper, Phil (July 2022), Kalam Cosmological Argument 2. Physicists and Philosophers Strike Back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=femxJFszbo8 (accessed 11/06/2024).

[iv] Fraser, Edward, So you think you understand the cosmological argument? https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html(accessed 11/06/2024).

[v] DrCraigVideos The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Part 1: Scientific https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0 (accessed 11/06/2024).

[vi] Reichenbach op cit.

[vii] Reichenbach op cit.

[viii] Garner, Jonathan David, Summary of Problems with the Kalam Cosmological Argument https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpress.com/2017/01/20/a-summary-of-the-problems-with-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/ (accessed 11/06/2024).

[ix] Halper, Phil (July 2022), op cit.

[x] DrCraigVideos The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Part2 – Philosophical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo (accessed 11/06/2024). See also DrCraigVideos Explaining Hilbert’s Hotel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwVs8J5tFhc (accessed 12/06/2024).

[xi] Dekofsky, Jeff, The Infinite Hotel Paradox. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3_KqkI9Zo (accessed 12/06/2024).

[xii] Philosopher Bede Rundle quoted in Reichenbach op cit. See also Rayo Augustin, Sizes of Infinity Part 1 Hibbert’s Hotel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1KkXA0vKsQ and Sizes of Infinity Part 2: Getting Real https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uKGX1lt6ZY (both accessed 11/06/2024).

[xiii] Halper (July 2022) op cit.

[xiv] Astrophysicist Arthur Eddington once said, “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations – then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation – well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the Second Law of Thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

[xv] DrCraigVideos The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Part 1: Scientific op cit.

[xvi] Halper, Phil (January 2022), physicists and Philosophers Debunk the Cosmological Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGKe6YzHiME&t=11s (accessed 11/06/2024).

[xvii] DrCraigVideos The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Part 1: Scientific op cit.

[xviii] Physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll in Halper (July 2022) op cit.

[xix] DrCraigVideos The Kalam Cosmological Argument – Part 1: Scientific op cit.

[xx] Closer to Truth: Alexander Vilenkin – Did Our Universe Have a Beginning? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNCJAtAkOf4 (accessed 11/06/2024).

[xxi] Fodor, James, Five Major Problems with William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument. https://jamesfodor.com/2021/03/01/five-major-problems-with-william-lane-craigs-kalam-cosmological-argument/ (accessed 11/06/2024).

[xxii] Reichenbach op cit.

[xxiii] Fraser, op cit.

[xxiv] Yamada, Taro, The Cosmological Argument: For and Against (January 13, 2020). https://ssrn.com/abstract=4324609 (accessed 11/06/2024).

[xxv] Reichenbach op cit.

[xxvi] Halper (July 2022) op cit.

[xxvii] Reichenbach op cit.

[xxviii] Reichenbach op cit.

[xxix] Halper (July 2022) op cit.

[xxx] Reichenbach op cit.

[xxxi] Physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll in Halper (July 2022) op cit.

[xxxii] Edwards, Paul, A Critique of the Cosmological Argument https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/edwards.html (accessed 12/06/2024).

[xxxiii] Fodor, op cit.

[xxxiv] Edwards, op cit.

[xxxv] Reichenbach op cit.

[xxxvi] Kalam Cosmological Argument – Dr. William Lane Craig vs Dr. Sean Carroll (Greer Heard Forum 2014) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5iiHV4yo7M (accessed 12/06/2024).