The Kalam Cosmological Argument

There are many versions of KCA. Most common is this one:
  1. Everything that begins to exist have a cause.
  2. The Universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, Universe has a cause.

Funny thing is that, it doesn't establish any specific cause of the Universe. It doesn't argue for any god.
We can take it a bit further...
  1. God is the uncaused cause of the Universe.
  2. Therefore god didn't begin to exist. (a)

From postulate (a) we conclude that either god doesn't exist or always existed. So, basically the argument proves nothing at all!

A new modified version of the argument as follows...
  1. All finite and contingent things have a cause.
  2. A chain of infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite which can not exist in reality. (b)
  3. Therefore there is a first cause.

Now theists say that this first cause must be god. But there is a problem with this first cause. According to the premise this first cause must have to be infinite and independant.
  1. God is an actual infinite. (c)
  2. Therefore god doesn't exist. [from (b) and (c)]

Another problem is, god must have to be either dynamic or static.

If god is dynamic then it has internal time, causality and chain of events. Then it suffers from same problem as the argument shows.

If god is static then it doesn't change. A changeless thing can not be a first cause.

Most importantly, it has been proven in Quantum Mechanics that finite and contingent things can occur without any cause. Virtual particles and anti-particles appear in vacuum space without any cause. It is called vacuum energy fluctuation or quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuation is spontaneous, random and uncaused.

Read more refutations of KCA on Iron Chariots Wiki, Rational Wiki and website.


1. Deconstructing the Kalam Cosmological fallacies.

2. Debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument of William Lane Craig.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

3 Responses to this post

    Louis said...

    "From postulate (a) we conclude that either god doesn't exist or always existed. So, basically the argument proves nothing at all!"

    Given the exclusive alternation between 1. "God doesn't exist" and 2. "God always existed", why couldn't the theist deny 1 and conclude 2?

    Louis said...

    Is your position that the conclusion of the Kalam doesn't follow from the premises, or that the conclusion of the Kalam doesn't imply that God exists?

    BD Atheist said...

    The conclusion of KCA does follow the premises (if we assume those to be true). KCA only argues about a cause of the Universe, nothing more.


Finished reading? Then please do LEAVE A COMMENT — whatever you are thinking right now! Peace ツ