The Kalam Cosmological Argument

893 Words4 Pages
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument that attempts to establish that the universe had a beginning which necessitates a personal cause for its existence (who supposes to be God). The full argument goes like this: 1. The world had a beginning. 2. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 3. Therefore, the world had a cause. 4. The cause must be a personal being. Therefore, a personal being causes the world to exist. P1: The world had a beginning. Kalam philosophers regard that God creates the world a finite time ago, but the term “world” could refer to (a) the “space-time” universe, or (b) everything exists in the physical as well as non-physical realm. For the notion (a), though scientific evidences, such as the Big Bang Theory, suggest the “space-time” universe began to exist a finite time ago, but they may not be persuasive enough to show that the world truly had a beginning. For the notion (b), Mathematical equation “1+1=2” and logical principle “if P then P” are examples of non-physical things, and the relationship between God and other non-physical things becomes tricky. They seem eternal and it’s not very plausible to say that they began to exist at the Big Bang. They seem to be independent from God’s creation. Thus it’s problematic to claim that God is responsible for everything in such kind of universe. Another argument emphasizes the impossibility of an infinite number of past events. If the universe didn’t have a beginning, then there is an infinite number of past events up to now. As an infinite set should be unaffected by addition or subtraction of one, the past history should be unaffected if we add or remove some events. Yet it’s not plausible to say, for example, the history remains the same if we remove all the wars. Thus our initial assumption that the universe didn’t have a beginning is problematic. However,

More about The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Open Document