The Kalam cosmological argument



The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It was first developed by the Muslim philosopher al-Ghazali in the 11th century, and has been defended by many Christian philosophers since then, including William Lane Craig.

The argument can be summarized in three premises:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

  2. The universe began to exist.

  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The first premise is widely accepted among scientists and philosophers, and is supported by our everyday experience. For example, we know that a chair cannot come into existence without a cause, such as a carpenter making it. Similarly, we know that a painting cannot come into existence without a cause, such as an artist painting it.

The second premise is also supported by scientific evidence. The Big Bang theory, which is the prevailing scientific theory about the origin of the universe, holds that the universe began to exist about 13.8 billion years ago.

The third premise follows from the first two premises. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then the universe must have a cause.

Craig argues that the cause of the universe must be a personal creator, or God. This is because the cause of the universe must be powerful enough to create the universe, and must also be intelligent enough to design the universe in such a way that it is capable of supporting life.

The Kalam cosmological argument is a controversial argument, and there are many objections that have been raised against it. However, Craig has defended the argument against these objections, and it remains one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God among Christian philosophers.

Here are some of the main objections to the Kalam cosmological argument:

  • The objection from the possibility of an infinite regress of causes: Some philosophers argue that it is possible for there to be an infinite regress of causes, meaning that everything that exists has a cause, and the cause of that cause has a cause, and so on. If this is the case, then the universe would not need to have a first cause, or God.

  • The objection from the possibility of the universe having no cause: Some philosophers argue that it is possible for the universe to have no cause. They argue that the universe could have always existed, or that it could have come into existence by chance.

  • The objection from the definition of "cause": Some philosophers argue that the definition of "cause" is not clear enough to support the Kalam cosmological argument. They argue that it is not clear what it means to say that something is the "cause" of another thing.

Craig has responded to these objections in a variety of ways. For example, he argues that the idea of an infinite regress of causes is incoherent, and that the universe must have a first cause. He also argues that the universe cannot have come into existence by chance, because the universe is ordered and complex, and chance cannot explain order and complexity. Finally, he argues that the definition of "cause" is clear enough to support the Kalam cosmological argument.

The Kalam cosmological argument is a complex and challenging argument, but it is an important argument to consider because it is one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Image
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a fundamental one in philosophy that has been pondered by thinkers for centuries. It is a question about the ultimate reason for the existence of the universe and everything in it. Leibniz himself believed that the answer to the question was that there must be a necessary being , or God, who exists by definition. He argued that if there were no necessary being, then everything would be contingent, or dependent on something else for its existence. But this would lead to an infinite regress , with each thing depending on something else, and so on. Therefore, there must be a necessary being to ground the existence of everything else. Other philosophers have offered different answers to Leibniz's question. Some have argued that the universe arose by chance, or through some kind of natural process. Others have argued that the question is meaningless because "nothing"
Read more

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. The Universe has a beginning

Image
Alexander Vilenkin- author of the BGV The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (BGV theorem) is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. The theorem is based on the following observations: The universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is accelerating. The expansion of the universe has been accelerating for most of its history. The theorem states that if the universe has been expanding, on average, throughout its history, then it must have had a beginning. This is because if the universe had been expanding forever, then it would have become infinitely large by now. However, the universe is not infinitely large, so it must have had a beginning. The BGV theorem is a significant result because it provides strong evidence that the universe had a beginning . This is important because it suggests that the universe is not eter
Read more