Kalam Cosmological Argument

The cosmological claims originated with Plato and it has since been explored widely by some of the greatest thinkers. In the past, many people knew the argument as the Leibnizian or Thomistic model but a lesser known Arabic version has recently come to modern philosopher’s attention. Based on this new version, William Craig published his book titled The Kalam Cosmological argument. Kalam claim

originates from medieval Arabic philosophy. The distinctive feature of this theory is an emphasis on the unfeasibility of an actual infinite. Essentially, Craig demonstrates that reality of an infinite is improbable, and if it was probable, then the world would not be actually infinite. Thus, it must have had a beginning. Given the advances in the science of cosmology, there is extensive research on the idea of caused-uncaused. Numerous theist explanations have been explored. Therefore, the dissertation defends kalam cosmological argument by evaluating the various versions of the claim. Moreover, the paper will discuss the various philosophies regarding the existence of the universe and how they differ from kalam cosmological argument. By exploring a number of philosophical thoughts, the analysis will determine whether the various differences make the argument compelling with respect to the topic of God’s existence.

1.0 Understanding the Problem

Aristotle, similar to many scientists believed that humans can learn the very existence of the universe through observation. Cosmology is a term reflecting Aristotle’s idea of using sensor data and observation to clarify the existence of the universe. The cosmological debate arises from human curiosity and it invokes the concern that the existence of the world is strong evidence that there is a being that created it. According to Craig, the claim for God’s existence studies the order of things by examining why things are the way they are. Cosmological theory exists in two forms: The kalam cosmological argument and the contingency claim (Nozick 1981, p.49). The main differentiating feature of these arguments is the ways in which they stray away from the initial objection to God’s existence. The contingency claim is drawn from the fact that existence of the cosmos and God is contingent. Therefore, the universe would not be there if God was not there in the beginning. Everything is supposed to exist compatibly. The cosmos is contingent and hence there should be a reason for being and that cause is God. God’s uncaused existence is the reason why the world exists since there needs to be uncaused ground for the world to exist. The two arguments evade the objection of God’s existence.

While the first approach distinguishes between the beginnings of things, the second compares God’s existence with contingency. Contingency claims are consistent with the notion that the universe has an infinite past. In contrast, kalam rests on the idea that the world has a beginning. The dissertation explains the cosmological arguments by evaluating Kalam approach and then comparing the claim with other philosophers of religion (Nozick 1981, p.46). According to Kalam, without God, humans cannot clarify the reality of the cosmos, and therefore, no one can explain the existence of God. Suggesting the actuality of a supreme creature advances many questions. As such, the cosmological claim leaves human in no superior locus than it found them. On one hand, it is assumed that God has no cause of existence. However, this raises the debate that if God’s existence cannot be explicated, then the simple cosmological argument would be unsound (Oppy 1993, p.57). If everything has a cause for existence, then there should be an explanation of God’s actuality. Quantum cosmologists propose the idea that universe exists because of an unconditional function of law of nature. This dissertation critically discusses the Kalam argument, as developed by a number of philosophers including William Craig.

1.1.Kalām cosmological argument

Kalam theory provides a discrepancy between God and the universe. The claim is that everything has a beginning and cause for it coming into being. According to William Craig, the Cosmological approach employs a general design of argument (logos) and that means its conclusion comes from particular actualities about the universe (cosmos) (1979, p.8). Craig claims that the kalam argument has its roots in Arabic medieval kalam and it is attributed to a couple of philosophers, led by Al Ghazali. Kalam in Arabic means “speech.’ Arguments against eternity of the world were given by Arab-speaking world which contributed to the kalam cosmological argument. Al Ghazali argues that existence is finite and therefore, he claims that possibility of the universe being infinite is wrong. Al Ghazali provides a number of arguments that contradict Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian supporters (Rutten 2012, p.94). The Arabic philosopher claims that temporal phenomena in the universe are caused by other temporal phenomena, till ad infinitum: Unless something stops this cause

Principally, the world’s existence is pegged to a certain supernatural being, commonly known as God. The original facts of the existence of a particular being are dependent on the universe as a totality of contingent things (Swinburne 2004, p.23). The cosmological argument stands to reason that the existence of the cosmos must have had an initial cause. It stands to reason, too, that such a cause must itself have been uncaused. Since it is logically prior to the existence of the cosmos, it must also be the case that such a cause-uncaused is in several other respects, unlike anything to be found in the cosmos. This line of thinking has occupied philosophers in both Western and non-Western traditions from early antiquity up to the present day (Erasmus 2018, p.56). Philosophers of religion, in particular, have seen in it a compelling case for the reality of God. Modal forms of the proclamation are consistent with the universe having a finite past (Craig 1984, p.8). The Kalam argument is fairly basic and it is founded on the following claims:

What exists, has a reason for it coming to being

The cosmos began to exist

Thus, based on the two former arguments, Kalam argues that the universe has a cause for its coming into being, outside itself.

If the world has a reason for actuality, then that reason is God

So, God exists

The first statement claims that everything that is existent has a cause. Essentially, proponents of kalam have to prove that the past is finite. This argument is valid but the question is whether it proves presence of God. The first premise is a metaphysical principle that is self-evident. It is possible to prove that something actually exists. As such, Craig does not spend much time in proving the existence of the universe (Erasmus 2018, p.68). However, it is important to further explain this principle. Nowhere have physical things existed without a cause. By use of empirical evidence, it is clear that the idea of existence is tied to a certain cause. Empirical confirmation from metaphysical principle of ex nihilo shows that it is impossible to deny the idea of physical existence. Craig examines the existence using the B-theoretic language and this illustrated below:

1. If x starts to exist at t, therefore, x derives its being at t

2. Essentially, x come to being and thus, the actual word does not have state of affairs where x exists eternally. Thus, if it exists in the first time x exits or is separate. Thus, t * < t at the time x existed. In conclusion, time is a genuine component of the universe and it is not eternal. X can only exist for a finite period of time. However, the concept does not go uncontested (Craig 2011, p.6).

In the subsequent part of the kalam contention, the idea that the universe exists is rather obvious because we can see it. Advocates for kalam can prove this fact by using modern science (Oppy 2006, p.67). Much of Craig’s writings have been committed to defending this premise, on both philosophical and scientific grounds. The reason for focusing on this section is because it is easy to find anything that serves as a refutation of the second principle, especially when we look at the realm of sensible and tangible objects. According to Craig, An endless chronological regress of events cannot exist (1984, p.5). Every point in the past would be definite as a finite point of view. Therefore, there are a finite number of past days. If B-theorists consider that the cosmos is timeless, then it would be argued that chronological regress of happenings is infinite. The future is only potentially infinite because we may not be able to count to infinity. Equally, if one begins in the present and count back to history; at no point will we reach the end. So, according to Craig, the universe began to exist and this can be explained scientifically and philosophically (Craig 2011, p.190). The third component claims that the earth has a cause for existence. Essentially, the aim of this argument is to explain that the earth should have a finite past (Craig 2011, p.191). The big bang theory can be used to bolster this point. Traditionally, mathematics has been used to explain these proclamations. To further understand this premise, the sub-arguments can be structured as follows|:

1. If the heavens exist, there would be finite regress of happenings.


2. As such, an actual infinite cannot exist.


3. Therefore, endless sequential events cannot happen.


4. To conclude, the world began to exist.

The premises above remains argue that it is meta-physically improbable for infinite objects to exist (Davies 2004, p.45). Moreover, the analysis covers Craig’s argument that it may possible to employ Kantorian’s approach to the real world without generating counter-intuitive illogicalities, as long one eludes postulating that infinite sets of real entities are within the sets of this theory. Cosmological proclamations on the existence of God rest in several ontological assumptions and most of them are reasonable candidates for philosophical examinations (Craig 1979, p.8). The first cause argument claims that everything has a beginning and that the world has a cause for existence. Schopenhauer is another philosopher that argues that only dynamism is causal-relata. Causation is everywhere and therefore, one can genuinely ask for a change in something that actually exists. The aim of Schopenhauer’s argument is to demonstrate a causa prima, a first cause. Schopenhauer restricts causality to change because before something exists, there is no clear sense of where it is coming from.

Advocates for kalam can explain this theory, both scientifically and mathematically. According to math, the idea of actual infinite cannot exist and it cannot be created through successive addition. Moreover, math claims that the existence of an infinite number draws logical contradictions. If the cosmos had a cause, then history would be infinite. Basically, everyone can attest that the past is not infinite and therefore actual infinities do not exist. Hilbert’s hypothetical is used to further explain this point (Craig 2011, p.19). Hilberts’s paradox comprises of a hotel that has an endless amount of rooms, and apparently, each one is occupied. Since there are infinite rooms, every chamber would, therefore, be occupied and logically, there would no space left for other guests. However, if a new client checks in, it is possible to free a room by shifting customer 1 to chamber 2. The guest in apartment 2 would therefore move to the next apartment, and the cycle continues (i.e. n +1). Thus, for each room (n) there is another one (n + 1). That means if all rooms are filled, there will be 1 vacancy and thus, the new guest can be accommodated after all (Hastings 2008, p.90). In conclusion, it is impossible for a hotel to accommodate and not accommodate a visitor, at the same time (Erasmus 2018, p.78).

From the evidence, it is clear that Hilbert’s hotel is an impossible paradox. This paradox is used to explain the fact that the world cannot be infinite (Craig 2011, p.67). If there is an actually infinite past, then we could assign a number of each moment. That means there would be no unassigned number. Thus, it is impossible to have a number of past infinite moments. Another mathematical argument justifying kalam is the proclamation that actual infinite cannot be transverse. For instance, if one sets out on a trip to an infinite destination in space, it wouldn’t only take a while to reach there, but also one would not reach their endpoint. Similarly, if one were to count to infinity, they would not get there. This also applies to the universe (Erasmus 2018, p.9). If the present has been arrived, then the past cannot be transverse. In summary, the universe has a beginning.

According to Medieval Muslim theologian Al Ghazali, the universe is conceived as the entirety of the temporal world. He gives us several arguments that the world is actually infinite. For instance, he argues that if the world was infinitely old, the two planets were rotating for an infinite period of time for an infinite number of times, even if one of them had completed twice or twenty times the number of rotations. Moreover, the number of rotations for the planets would have been either even or odd and yet infinities are neither odd nor even. More so, the idea of the universe being infinitely old would mean that there should an infinite number of humans or human souls (Erasmus 2018, p.6). This fact is unrealistic and unacceptable. For those reasons, kalam argument is scientifically and mathematically accurate. If one matches all natural numbers with the subset of even numbers, they would prove Al Ghazali’s argument. For example, if planet A rotates once in every 10 rotations of planet B, then the following illustration can be used:

Planet A (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6…)

Planet B (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60…)

Naturally, the even numbers appear to be half as many as the odd numbers. As such, planet B would appear to be rotating 10 times more than planet A, but they both have the same cardinal number. Each of the planets is said to be infinite because of the 1-to-1 correspondence in which they are positioned (Erasmus 2018, p.80).

According to Rutten, for the kalam argument to be sound, the following premises must be true:

Premise 1: The law of causality

The most fundamental principle of the kalam argument is the law of causality. If the principle of causality were invalid, there would be no basis to science because it would be assumed that anything and everything could pop into existence from something. Premise 1 is true because something does not pop into existence from absolute nothing. It becomes inexplicable why anything does not pop into existence from nothing. For something to be actual there must be prior potential for it to be real (Rutten 2012, p.56).

Premise 2: Did the universe have a beginning

In the past, people would argue that universe always existed and it would be eternal. Basically, it was argued that it never had a beginning and it did not have an end. However, science and philosophy contradicts these arguments (Rutten 2012, p.35).

Argument from philosophy – Philosophers contend that if the universe was eternal, then past events would be beginning-less. That means that there can’t be an actual endless sum of things/events due to inconsistencies.

Argument from science – The first law of thermodynamics shows that energy in the universe is constant. Therefore, we cannot make or destroy matter. The second law argues that energy in the cosmos is constantly moving from usable to unusable states (Rutten 2012, p.90). Essentially, every time one does something that consumes energy, they convert usable energy to unusable ones. Considering that there is no way to make usable energy, there would not usable energy at the moment, especially if the world was eternally old. It would be argued that there would be no usable energy right now because it would have been consumed an eternity ago. Scientific law shows that the universe had a beginning. Based on philosophy and the law of dynamics it is concluded that the universe must have had a caused (Rutten 2012, p.19).

Rutten proclaims that the eternal cause of the world must have been itself, uncaused. Eternal entities do not have a beginning and as such they do not have a cause (2012, p.78). Based on this claim, the creator/cause of universe must have been unimaginably powerful for it to create space, matter and time. Rutten states that they are two possible candidates that fit the description of all-powerful force and these are; a personal being or an abstract cause (2012. P.34). An abstract cause is however an oxymoron because objects cannot cause anything. As such, the author sticks to the idea that a personal being chose to create the universe and its components. The author not only points to God, but he also argues that science and logic proves the fact that the universe’s existence was caused by an uncaused being.

1.2. How does it differ from other versions of the cosmological argument?

Unlike Aristotle, Craig and Al Ghazali, Avicenna believes that an actual infinite is possible. Whereas kalam thinkers believe in an infinite series that may not be transversed, Avicenna holds that an infinite series may not be transversed in finite period of time. Basically, given an infinite period of time, inestimable time can be transversed. Avicenna uses a couple of illustrations to refute kalam theory (Erasmus 2018, p.67). The philosopher uses two identical beams O and R, which extends infinitely from earth to space. Take for instance the removal of a section of R (the space between earths to the edge of our galaxy) and that area is retitled x. O is thus the same while R is reduced by x. Matching R with O after elimination of x brings contradictory outcomes. Firstly, it would be absurd if both beams are still infinite. R should be shorter than O by the length of x. R should be finite because of the removal of x, which is also finite. Adding x to R would make it finite – and not an infinite length. Combination of two finite lengths would not make the beam infinite. On the other hand, O remains the same. Based on the argument, it would mean that O is infinite while R is not. Either way, the claim would be contradictory (Rutten 2012, p.17). Even though Avicenna argues that an actual infinite can exist, he claims that the beam scenario proves that actual infinite can only exist with an ordered magnitude. The magnitude would first need to be whole. Therefore, if kalam theory would be true, then time would be considered an actual infinite quantity because all parts of time may not exist at once. Secondly, the quantity must be ordered. As such, time gives us an actual infinite.

Contrast between Leibnizian Approach and Kalam Argument

Leibniz agreed with Aquinas by arguing that necessity and possibility are enough to show God’s existence. Wilhem Leibniz used the following premises to explain his philosophy:

1. Everything has an explanation either as a necessity or external cause


2. Since the cosmos has a justification for its being, then that explanation should be God.


3. The cosmos exists


4. Hence, existence of the world explains existence of God.

Leibniz explains his line of reasoning for this inference by avoiding two main problems common in Aquinas and kalam argument: Explanation of the world’s existence and why it is the way it is.

Leibniz key responses were simple: The question has an answer and the satisfactory answer to this question implies that God actually exists. He used the cannon of sufficient cause to explain the concept of God’s existence. The basic idea was that if the world is the way it is, then there must be an explanation of how the world is. PSR (Principle of Sufficient reason) states that everything has an explanation. PSR come in several different forms and one version is that everything that exists has a basis of existence. This existence is either by necessity or by its own nature. Something’s existence is metaphysically necessary for it to exist. For instance, if object X existence is necessary for its own nature to exist, then why does object X exist in the actual universe as opposed to it not existing? According to Leibzin, the reason why X exists in the real world is because X exists in all possible worlds. Using this example, we can argue that Divinity’s being is metaphysically obligatory and if God exists, it is because he exists necessarily. God’s existence explains why unprejudiced morality exists.

Unlike kalam, Leibniz argues that beyond the collection of finite things, there is one powerful being that rules as the self. The one being that rules the universe and that being is God. One of the main objections of the Leibniz formulation is that the principle of sufficient reason seems untrue. Craig argues that there cannot be explanations of why there exists contingent state of affairs. Moreover, the fact that the universe exists does not mean that there is an external force that brought it into existence. In contrast, kalam argues that the universe is not eternal and there must be contingence in its existence. Essentially, the existence of the universe is a brute fact and thus, it is an exception from Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason. Thus, kalam argument is both an independent argument for existence of God and also a valuable complement to the Leibnizian theory.

Сomparison of the Kalam and Thomastic Cosmological claim

In comparison to the kalam claim, the Thomastic cosmological claim is founded on modest observations of the realm around us. This approach focuses on an individual’s actual consequences and it does not focus on the universe as a whole. The philosophy was based on the fact that truth should be accepted irrespective of how or where it is found. Aquinas’ doctrines are drawn from Greek and Roman philosophers (Erasmus 2018, p.46). Thomistic approach creates a minimal notion of God and it generates a completer concept of God to other succeeding deductions such as the kalam argument. The most universal declaration by Thomas is found in Summa contra Gentiles. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologia and his thinking was based on the assumption that nature has to be traced to God as its first cause.

The comparison between Kalam and Thomastic claim is based on the following premises:

Premise 1: What we observe in the universe is contingent. According to Aquinas this philosophy is based on those things that we can actually see. The key feature of the first premise is the notion of contingency. Basically, something owes its existence to something else. Causal relations involve transferring and not initiating a cause. We know nothing that exists by itself. Nothing turns out of nothing. Aquinas supports this argument by arguing that motion is an effect and it needs a cause (Erasmus 2018, p.46). Equally, whatever moves something must be moved by something that sets all others into motion, and he terms it as an unmoved mover.

Premise 2: A sequence of causality cannot be infinite

According to Kalam, the second premise basically shows that regardless of how things are complex or interconnected, the order of connected things is finite. The modern explanation of this theory is the train. Envisage seeing a train moving towards you for the first time. This experience is baffling because one wonders how the boxcar is moving. Upon further investigation, one understands that the box is being pulled by another box car that is in front of it. Thus, it allows one to visualize the various naturalistic scenario that are common in the society (Erasmus 2018, p.45). However, stringing several boxcars all-round in a circle until the first hooks does not clarify the movement of the head box-car. Equally, the cosmos is a developed eco-system whereby one thing is causally linked to the other.

However, Thomastic argument is based on the idea that a being’s continued existence is reliant upon external facts. Kalam argues that something needs a cause for existence while Thomastic claim explains that the same things require another cause for its sustained existence. The world is filled with numerous instances of such beings. For instance, ice is dependent on the continued existence of certain temperature levels (Erasmus 2018, p.67). If the temperature keeps rising, then the ice will melt and cease to exist. Equally, a human being depends on temperature, pressure and nuclear forces that hold the body atoms together. If such conditions are radically altered, then human beings will cease to exist. As explained in these examples, something is dependent on other factors for it to continue to exist.

1.3.Terminology

. In order to comprehend the argument on whether the universe is eternal or not, it is important to understand the difference between potential and actual infinities. Actual infinities are determined in totality. Simply put, a definite infinite is the actualization of a potential infinite. On the other hand, when we say that a distance can be divided infinitely numerous times, then this notion is referred to a potential infinite. Therefore, it is impossible to reach a point where we can divide an actual infinite number for a number of times because we can always divide one more (Erasmus 2018, p.48). Conceptually, there is no smallest unit of division. According to Craig, dynamic moments, planetary rotations or human existence are potentially infinite at best. They progress in a linear motion and they are always increasing to infinity. An infinite series of causes/events refers to an endless sequence of caused causes that end with an uncaused cause. In this case, the uncaused cause is God. The contention is that each cause is supported by another cause until an infinite point where there is an uncaused cause. The cosmological argument is a philosophical claim that aims at explaining the existence of God and how everything else is caused by an uncaused being. A contingent claim depends on the reality of something uncertain happens in the future. According to the paper, the universe from a philosophical sense comprises of space, time and their contents. Some of the components of the universe include stars, planets, energy and all other forms of matter (Erasmus 2018, p.56).

2.0.Responding to the problem

In support of Kalam, the paper uses Thomas Aquinas’ idea of first mover and first sustainer to explain God’s existence. His claim is based on the following principles:

There exists a sequence of events

The happenings exist as caused and not un-caused

There is a contingent being that triggered this existence

Therefore, God’s existence is cause of a whole series of beings present in the universe

2.1.The Five Ways by St. Aquinas

St Aquinas’ argument can be used as a point of reference for kalam (Erasmus 2018, p.56). The philosopher devised a theory known as five-way. He explains that the existence of God can be elaborated based on motion, causation, degrees of perfection, ends of nature, contingency and potentiality/actuality. These notions will be extensively explored below:

1. Argument from motion

Erasmus contends that the first proof of a divine being’s existence is based on the notion that all things are placed in motion (2018, p.89). This comparison is founded on the notion that if objects are in motion, it was instigated by the nod created on or after another thing. The philosopher argues that infinites chain of things that are presently in motion causes other things to be in motion (Davies 2004, p.26). Therefore, if there is an infinite chain that existed among those things, then people would explain to the movement that they perceive. If one moves in reverse, the cause of motion would move back until ad-infinitum. Essentially, it will be like counting points in a line section while tracing them from points B to A. one would therefore not get to point A, and yet we know that it exists.

2. Causation

According to Erasmus, the second explanation is that an efficient cause is the reason for the change in another thing (2018, p.56). Every efficient cause must have its original cause and thus it bases an infinite chain of efficient grounds. In a realm of practical things, there should be an order of effectual causes and thus there should be no case known whereby something is the cause of itself. However, such efficient causes cannot go to infinity because the first cause should be an intermediate and ultimate cause. The first source must have been uncaused and therefore it is referred to as the unmoved mover. Essentially, the unmoved mover sets everything else into motion. If motion, in the beginning, would have been originated from another object, then science would have solved the mystery of infinite-regression. If there is no first cause, then there won’t be an ultimate cause. If efficient causes go on to infinity, then it would prudent to admit that there is a first efficient cause. Therefore, Aquinas concludes that the unmoved mover is God (Erasmus 2018, p.56).

3. Contingency

St. Aquinas argues that distinguishing between ‘possible’ and ‘necessary’ is vital in explaining God’s existence. This argument is based on the difference between things that exist necessarily and those ones that exist contingently. The following premises further explain contingency:

1. There exist contingent beings that could fail to exist.

2. Beings that could fail to exist sometimes do not exist.

3. If all beings were contingent, then nothing would have existed at some point

4. Whatever comes to existence must have a cause.

5. Therefore, whatever begins to exist must have been caused to exist by things that already exist.

6. Lastly, if all beings were contingent, then nothing would have existed now.

Arguments from contingency bring up the distinction between necessity and possibility. Something is considered essential if it did not exist. Law of math explains the idea of necessity. For instance, it is plausible to say mathematical truths such as 2 + 2 = 4 irrespective of how the world is (Craig 2011, p.67). The same case is argued with regard to God. Irrespective of the way the world is, God is necessary. Something is considered necessary, if it cannot possibly fail to exist. Non-existence of things is impossible and therefore, existence of matter is considered contingent. Possible existences are capable of being actual or non-existent. For instance, natural beings can either exist or not depend on regeneration or/and corruption.