Home

The Cosmological Argument

The Cosmological Argument

    The Cosmological or Kalam Argument is based on the fact that we now know we live in a created universe. Therefore, the universe has a distinct beginning. We recognize the concept of causality: That which comes into being has a cause. 

    The Cosmological Argument states:

    Everything that begins has a cause.

    The universe had a beginning.

    Therefore, the universe had a cause.

    Arguments for the Cosmological Argument

    There are several reasons to understand we live, not in an eternal universe but instead in a created universe.

    1. The first reason is the Second law of thermodynamics. This law notes that all systems move toward lower entropy. Because the universe is running out of energy as Hydrogen is used up, we know the universe had to have a beginning point. We have not yet run out of hydrogen but in the distant future we will have exhausted all the available energy. The loss of hydrogen is a one-way trip. Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal.
    2. The second is the observation that there is a red shift in the light from stars that are observed via telescopes. This shift means that the stars are moving away from us. Or, said differently, the universe is still expanding.
    3. A third reason is the radiation echo that can be heard on finely tuned radio. It was predicted to exist and was found as predicted. When the universe came into creation it radiation was created that can still be heard as radio waves.
    4. A fourth reason is the theory of General Relativity. This theory supports the expanding universe and shows an interdependence between space, time and energy. It also demonstrates that there was a point at which there was a beginning.
    5. A fifth reason is a great mass of energy at the edge of the universe. This is what would be expected if there had been a great explosion of energy at the beginning of the universe.

    These are strong reasons to believe that the universe came into being at a specific point in time space history and therefore must have had a creator.

    Objections to the Cosmological Argument

    1. The designer must be like the designers we know: finite, multiple, male or female, imperfect, etc. But God is not like this.
      • First, the principle of uniformity demands only similarity, not the identity of causes in the past, with those in the present.
      • Second, similarity of cause to effect means both likeness and differences.
      • Third, the cause of the world must be different from the world it causes in many ways: Creator vs. creature, no beginning vs. beginning, infinite vs. finite, pure actuality vs. actuality, and potentiality. Therefore, the effect is like the cause in its actuality but unlike it in its potentiality (limitations)
    2. Who made God?
      • First, No one made God. God is the unmade Maker and the uncaused Cause. He never came to be but always was.
      • Second, God needs no cause. Even atheists believe in an uncaused universe. So, why not an uncaused God?
      • Third, something is always the universe or God if there is anything. And the universe had a beginning. Hence, God always was.
    3. If everything needs a cause, then so does God.
      • Everything does not need a cause. Only what begins (is contingent or finite) needs a cause. The world is all of these, but God is none of these. Hence, God does not need a cause, but the universe does.
    4. An infinite series (regress) of causes is possible. Hence, there is no first cause.
      • First, an infinite regress is not possible since any infinite series of actual things is impossible (since one more can always be added, but more than an infinite numbered series is impossible).
      • Second, an infinite number of causes is not possible since everyone is being caused, and yet one is causing itself, which is impossible.
    5. Things can happen without a cause.
      • This is absurd. Even the skeptic Hume said so. It is absurd to affirm that nothing can produce something. Nothing comes from nothing; nothing ever could.
    6. According to the Heisenberg principle, subatomic particles operate without a cause.
      • First, this was never stated. He only asserted we cannot predict the exact course of a particle, not that it did not have a cause.
      • Second, we can’t see the subatomic world without disturbing it.
      • Third, the pattern produced by particles is regular and predictable; hence, it must have a cause.
    7. Believing there is a first cause leads to antinomies or contradictions. For if everything needs a cause, then there must be a first cause. But if everything needs a cause, then so does the first cause. Hence the contradiction.
      • Everything does not need a cause. Only what begins (is finite or contingent) requires a cause.
    8. Only a finite cause is needed to explain a finite effect, not an infinite one.
      • Not so; if every finite effect needs a cause, then the first cause cannot be finite, or else it would require a cause. Therefore, the first cause must be uncaused, so the first cause cannot be finite, contingent, or have a beginning.