The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Overview

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Kalam or KCA in short) is a philosophical argument for the existence of a cause for the universe. It is a deductive argument positing that an extremely intelligent, powerful, and personal agent is the cause for the reality we find ourselves in. The argument is surprisingly simple, yet it has been highly influential in both philosophical and theological circles.

Definitions

For clarity, the following terms are used in the argument:

Structure

The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be broken down into a series of premises and a conclusion:

$ P1.\enspace B(x) \implies C(x) $

$ P2.\enspace B(𝕌) $

$ \therefore \enspace C(𝕌) $

It looks like a weird math proof instead of an argument, but let’s look at it step by step.

$ P1.\enspace B(x) \implies C(x) $

Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

Note

This isn’t claiming that everything has a cause, just all things that begin to exist (i.e., things that have a beginning).

Explanation of P1

This premise is rooted in common experience and the intuitive understanding of causality. If something begins to exist, it must have a cause that brings it into being. For instance, if a car is built, there must be a builder, materials, and a process that brings the car into existence. Or even simpler, if you see tire burn marks in the street, it’s perfectly logical and coherent to assume that the marks were cause by something other than the tire marks themselves. In fact, most would argue that to say the car or tire marks popped into existence uncaused, without reason, is not only a bad explanation, but that it goes against everything we believe to be true about reality.

Objections to P1

  1. Quantum Mechanics: Some may point to phenomena in quantum mechanics, like particle fluctuations, where events seem to occur without clear causes.

However, such events do not contradict P1 because they don’t involve things coming into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing) but rather involve changes in the configuration of existing energy within the quantum vacuum.

Particles appear and disappear in the same manner as a fist appears and disappears as the configurations of someones fingers change or shift. In addition, the appearance and disappearance of particles are governed by very specific rules, and is quite the opposite of “some thing popping into existence because of no thing without reason”.

  1. Applies to the Cause: If everything that begins to exist needs a cause, then whatever caused that would need a cause too. You are then faced with a logically infinite chain of events with no “uncaused cause”

This objection is usually due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the first premise. There is a big distinction from “everything has a cause” and “everything that begins to exist has a cause”, and opponents fail to make this very basic distinction. It is intellectually embarrassing to propose such an argument that has been already addressed thousands of years ago, with Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover”. To ask “What moved the ‘Unmoved Mover’” is simply a logical contradiction, and makes as much sense as the phrase “Can I have hot iced coffee, and without ice?” or “is this dairy milk, milk-free?”.

Either you have an infinite chain of causal events with no first-cause (which will be explored later), or you have a first-cause that itself was not caused (because if it was caused then it would cease to be the first-cause). Let’s keep those two options in mind for later.

  1. Necessity of a Material Cause: Some may argue that only material things require causes, but abstract objects (like numbers) do not.

Laying aside the question of whether abstract objects are actual things or not, this actually touches on a concept that points to the Kalam’s favor. When speaking of “things” whether material or otherwise, two important distinctions appear: things that can fail to exist (contingent) and things that cannot fail to exist given their very nature (necessary). An example of this is that we can imagine a world where 2 apples either did exist or a world where they didn’t (contingent), but we cannot imagine a world where 1 + 1 = 2 didn’t exist (necessary).

The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that abstract objects have any sort of causal power instead of just having a nature of logical truths. “One made me do it” is a phrase that can only be uttered by an elegantly superfluous thespian or a skitzophrenic convinced that numbers are influencing his behavior. Either way, abstract object cannot be understood to have any casual power (only logical power), especially over the material world. thus this objection proves moot.

  1. Anything Eternal Doesn’t Require a Causal Explanation: If something has always existed, critics might argue, it doesn’t need a cause.

This is actually one objection that the Kalam can actually affirm and doesn’t harm the argument (as seen in objection #2). However, this does more harm than good to the objector’s position. “x is eternal” means logically that there was never, and never will be, a time when x is non-existent (i.e. x never fails to exist), and thus means that x is logically necessary. So the objector actually forces themselves into a corner in admitting that if x never begins to exist then it doesn’t strictly require a cause, which is just the inverse representation of premise #1: $ \neg C(x) \implies \neg B(x) \equiv B(x) \implies C(x) $ (If x doesn’t require a causal explanation, then x must have no beginning).

But can’t this also apply to the universe?

This leads us neatly into the second premise:

$ P2.\enspace B(𝕌) $

The Universe began to exist.

Explanation of P2

The second premise asserts that the universe (i.e. All of matter, time, space, and energy), began to exist at some point in the past. This is consistent with the prevailing scientific cosmological model, referred to as the Big Bang, which posits that the universe had a definite beginning around 13.8 billion years ago. However, This also has a logical component that is also quite compelling against an infinite causal chain.

There are no Actual Infinities

By actual infinites, I mean a specific kind of infinity that would exist in physical and temporal reality. I’m not saying that the mathematical concept is somehow false, but I am saying that it is a tool mathematicians can play with as long as they don’t take it out of the toy-box of mathematics. The problem with bringing infinities into the actual (i.e. physical and temporal) world, is that it enviably creates paradoxes when followed to their logical conclusion. This has been previously shown with the example of Hilbert’s Grand Hotel, where a full hotel can accept an infinite amount of guests, check out an infinite number of guests, and still have the exact same number of guests the entire time. Logically, when paradoxes occur in logic, then at least one of the assumptions leading to the conclusion must be false. Thus, since the mathematics are logically sound, then the assumption of an actual infinity (the premise) must be false.

This will also apply to the infinite causal chain mentioned earlier. Let’s assume there was a past infinite chain of events $ E$ with the notation $ E(0)$ denoting the last occurring event (this chain has no beginning, but it ends. This models a reality where the universe had no beginning, and $ E(0)$ is now). Because we are in this moment now (i.e. $ E(0)$ ), we can say that $ E(0)$ is true because it happens right now. However, because this is a causal chain, we also know that $ E(0)$ is contingent (caused by something), or let’s assume so for now. This would mean that logically $ E(0)$ was caused by some event E(-1). From this we can generalize that for any event $ E(n)$ within the causal chain, we know:

  1. It is contingent (caused by some event in $ E$ other than itself)
  2. The causal event is some $ E(n-1)$
  3. If some $ E(n) $ isn’t caused by something, then it fails to exist (1st point)

This is a very bad thing, because we have just shown paradoxically that $ (\forall x \in \N)(\neg E(x)) $ meaning, that for all possible events in the chain, they fail to exist unless caused by some other $ E(x)$ , which doesn’t exist because it also fails to have a causing event. Basically, if our two deduced points are true for all events, then all events fail to exist. Paradoxically, we know $ E(0)$ does exist, because it is happening right now, but $ 0 \in \N $ so logically $ E(0)$ fails to exist.

So what is our way forward? The issue must lie in our assumptions. There must be some $ E(\alpha) $ that is necessary for all following events in $ E $ to be caused by. At the bottom of all this, there needs to be some ground to stand on. Thus, the simplest explanation is that this infinite chain of events is not actually infinite, but has some beginning and therefore not infinite.

Objections to P2

  1. Alternate Cosmological Models: Critics may propose alternative cosmological theories, such as the steady-state theory, that suggest the universe may have always existed or that it doesn’t have a definite beginning.

These models have been largely overshadowed by evidence supporting the Big Bang model, which points to a beginning for the universe. As my friend also likes to say, “Just because you have a mathematical model for something, doesn’t mean that the model is reality”. Car models are great, and you can have immensely detailed ones too, but that doesn’t mean that it’ll drive you to work. Humans are fallible, and so that means we cannot have the mindset of Aristotle and “think” our way through discovering the universe. No matter how great our thought experiments or mathematical models, they always must be tested by the evidence.

  1. The Universe Is Past Eternal: Some argue for a past-eternal universe, suggesting that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time.

The Kalam argument challenges this with evidence from contemporary cosmology, such as the discovery of cosmic background radiation, increase of entropy, and the expansion of space, all pointing to a beginning. Even if there wasn’t scientific evidence to point to, the previous section has shown the issue with the idea of a past infinite amount of time to be arguably illogical.

  1. Time Is Cyclic: Others propose a cyclical model, where the universe undergoes endless cycles of birth, death, and rebirth. Or even that one day entropy will reverse itself.

The Kalam addresses this by highlighting that even a cyclic universe would still require a cause for its first inception, and that this model doesn’t solve the problem of a beginning because that just falls into the same category of the previous objection. Not only that, but cyclical models have shown that even mathematically, entropy is still preserved, and thus each cycle will have less energy than the previous, which also points to a beginning.

The point of reversing entropy falls into a trap I like to call “scientific wish casting”. First, because there is zero evidence that it’s even physically possible, and secondly it ends up still presupposing a sort of “meta-time” when saying that it “reverses” itself. For example, let’s say you have the events $ A, B, C, D $ and at event $ C $ you reverse entropy. What actually happens? The event’s will still “flow” in the same direction $ A \to B \to C \to B \to … $ and you still have the problem of an infinite chain of events.

$ \therefore \enspace C(𝕌) $

Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Explanation of the Conclusion

If both P1 and P2 are valid and the reasoning from them is sound, then the conclusion logically follows: the universe had a cause. I won’t put in my conclusion that this cause was God, not because I don’t believe it, but because I want to make this conclusion simple enough to be unobjectionably true, yet powerful enough to evoke reflection. At the very least one should ponder what that cause is, certainly not itself. So why is all of matter, space, time, and energy caused, rather than there just being nothing at all? Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Objections?

At this point, an objector could challenge the argument by disputing one of the premises (P1 or P2) or questioning the logical structure. However, if both premises are accepted and the reasoning from them is valid, the conclusion that the universe has a cause is difficult to rationally reject and is, in fact, logically impossible to refute.

Since the argument follows the logical pattern of modus ponens (If P implies Q, and P is true, then Q must be true), any valid objection must either invalidate P1 or P2, or challenge the application of the principle of causality to the universe itself. Any other strategy would be to fight against the very structure of logic itself.

Application

Here I will allow myself to reflect on the implications of the conclusion. Note that this isn’t part of the argument, but the application of it’s implications. Is the Universe self-caused? Well, that begs the further question, if something causes itself, why? The only options are:

  1. Due to its nature
  2. No reason at all

The problem here is that if something exists due to it’s very nature, then it is not contingent, but necessary. But if it is necessary that means it can’t fail to exist, and so there shouldn’t be a time when before, $x$ didn’t exist, and after $x$ did exist.

In addition, if, for the sake of argument, $x$ did begin to exist by it’s own nature at some time $t$, why didn’t it begin to exist at $ t-1 $ or $ t+1 $? If because of it’s nature it needed to begin at time $t$, then you no longer have a necessary thing, but a contingent one, that depends on time.

We know that we can’t push the argument further back because then time would be necessary and thus eternal, which is paradoxical. If time had to begin at $ t=0 $ then to say that time had to begin to exist because of it’s nature is to reduce it to a brute fact, “It’s that way because it just is”.

So, what other option is there? That matter can’t create all of matter and time can’t create time. So the cause needs to be immaterial to create material, timeless to create time, and spaceless to create space. In addition, Energy cannot be created by matter, time, or space, so there needs to be some energy source. Given the amount of energy in the whole universe, that is a lot larger than a 12V battery…

So we have a cause that is:

Great, so then we have our universe-causer, right? Not quite.

We have all the properties of something that is capable of causing the universe, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that those properties can cause the universe themselves. We know that whatever is the first cause must be necessary, but there is nothing inherent about the nature of being immaterial that leads to creation of the material. In other words, being immaterial is a requirement of something that causes the existence of all material, but that isn’t the explanation of why material begins to exist in the first place. The same fact applies to the other three; We are missing an important property. So then we must ask: what property has the capability of bringing causes into existence by it’s own nature? We know that everything that begins to exist has a cause, but what things have the ability to begin causes?

Near the house I grew up in, there is a path that leads to a trail in the woods. It’s a very beautiful walk in the spring and the fall, and it leads to a glassy pond surrounded by the forests scenic tranquility. Say one day, I decided to go to that pond only to be cut off by a coarse stretch of asphalt tearing across the forest. I ask myself, “Why is this here?”

Two possible answers will come to mind (excluding the non-answer that “it just popped into existence out of nothing for no reason at all, don’t question it”) are: This was caused either by nature, or by a will against nature. I quickly and obviously reject the idea that this was caused by nature, simply because it doesn’t at all fit the causal scope of nature. Yes, it’s there because heated tar was combined with some other substances to create asphalt, and the pigment of the paint reflects the specific spectrum to then appear yellow to my eyes. However, none of these explain why the road is there, only how. The remaining option is that there must be some active will that began a causal chain separate from the consistent causal chain of nature. This is the unique property of wills.

Now even if you try to argue that the road was still caused by nature in the firing of neurons of some meat puppet, I can simply reject your assertion on the basis that I do not accept arguments coming from the firing neurons of a meat puppet. Because we humans in fact have a very odd shape within our universe, in a reality where everything around us seems to be governed and determined by simple and elegant laws, our minds actively fight against being put into the same mold. We bite and claw and scratch against the very idea that we are (as Dostoyevsky puts it) “merely keys on a piano”. It is beneath us, and every fiber in our being fights against the thought of bowing to it.

So if from our natural experience we know that minds or wills have the property of being causal agents able to bring cause into existence, we can at least say that a personal mind and will would be the final property we would need in order to complete our picture of the cause of the Universe. Given that there doesn’t seem to be any equal or alternative proposition of something that can “cause causes”, we can say that the most likely cause of our universe is:

Conclusion

There are so many paths to continue from this, but I think this rambling has gone on for long enough. It is best, for the sake and sanity of the unfortunate sole that got this far, that I wrap up my thoughts.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument remains one of the most effective arguments for the existence of a cause behind the universe. Its simplicity and logical rigor make it a valuable tool in both philosophical and apologetic discussions. Hopefully if I have the time (and motivation), I can delve into the other effective arguments for God (and specifically the Christian God).

While it doesn’t explicitly prove God, I believe it acts as a near impenetrable wall against doubts. Even at my lowest, when I feel like there just isn’t a point to anything, I run up against the Kalam. I know that if I want to give into my doubts, I need to first disprove the Kalam. I know that I’ve tried many times, but it is solid. Hopefully you too are blessed by it, or at the very least, it leaves a pebble in your shoe, so that you can’t help but wonder:

What caused all of this?