Kalām Cosmological Argument

I’ve been thinking heavily on the Kalām Cosmological Argument. I’m finding it a fairly significant and well reasoned defense for the existence of God. I understand that there are fundamental arguments against this, but from a simple reasoned defense, it is very compelling. Most defenses against this argument for God tend to require a bit of mental gymnastics that go against Occam’s Razor.

The Argument

—Add the WLC Video—

First, let’s define the argument. The video above does a decent job of defining the argument and some of the rational behind them. Let’s show the simplicity here:

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
  2. The universe began to exist;
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Proposistion 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Without going into a deep analysis of this argument, we will use intuition to follow this proposition. Looking at everything that is temporal, it has a cause. A simple way of saying this is that a book was put together by the publisher/author/etc., water occurs by the arrangement of atoms in a particular way, or humans exist from star dust. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

Kai Neilson, an atheist philosopher from the University of Calgary, puts it this way: “…suppose you hear a loud bang…and you ask me, ‘What made that bang?’ and I reply, ‘Nothing, it just happened.’ You would not accept that–in fact you would find my reply quite unintelligible.”

Without diving into quantum physics, solipsism, and ontology arguments, the path to causality is easily warrented.

Proposition 2: The universe began to exist

This argument takes two forms. One, Big Bang Cosmology and two,