The kalam cosmological argument

The cosmological argument is a philosophical and theological argument that provides evidence for the existence of God based on the existence of the universe and its origins. There are different formulations of this argument, but one common version is known as the “Kalam cosmological argument,” which can be summarized in the following points:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause: This point asserts that any object or event that comes into existence has a cause that brought it into being. This principle is based on our everyday observations of cause and effect.

2. The universe began to exist: Scientific evidence, such as the Big Bang theory, suggests that the universe had a definite beginning in time. The expansion of the universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation are some of the indications of this.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause: Given the first two points, the conclution is that the universe must have a cause for its existence. This cause is often referred to as the “First Cause” or the “Uncaused Cause.”

This First Cause must possess certain attributes.

• Since it caused time, it must be timeless, eternal.
• Since it caused matter, it must be immaterial.
• Since it caused an entire universe it must be powerful enough to bring the universe into existence.
• Since this happened once some 13.7 billion years ago, and not sooner or later, it means that it was a choice, so the cause must be capable of making choices.
• Since life and consciousness exists in the universe, and these can not be shown to emerge spontaneously, it is more likely than not that the cause is alive and concsious.
• Since information always comes from intelligent beings, and the universe contains information such as DNA, it is more likely than not that the first cause is an intelligent being.

These attributes align with the traditional attributes of a creator deity in theism.

Criticism

Critics of the cosmological argument raise various objections, such as the possibility of an infinite regress of causes, the application of causality outside the scope of the observable universe, and alternative explanations for the origin of the universe, such as quantum mechanics and multiverse theories.

An infinite regress of causes is a practical impossibility. If there is a previous infinite number of causal events that must take place before we come to the present moment, then how could the present moment ever arrive? there would still be an infinite number of events that would need to happen.

Causality beyond or before spacetime is a theoretical idea we can not really know anything about. And however it may function it does not get rid of the necessity for a first cause. See the argument from contingency.

Quantum mechanics also provides no compelling explanation. Virtual particles, quantum fluctuations, unpredictable behaviors and so on does not negate causality. At worst it shows that we don’t fully understand causality. And in any case the existence of the quantum world is still a physical thing that requires a cause to explain it.

The multiverse theory is a nice piece of science fiction used to explain away the need for a first cause, by saying that every possible variation of universes has happened. Unfortunately there is absolutely no evidence for this theory. And also even if it was true, it would only shift the problem one step back and magnify it infinitely: How does such a multiverse exist?

The only reasonable conclusion is an eternally existent, spaceless, powerful, living, conscious, intelligent uncaused first cause.