Kalam Cosmological Argument Science

The Kalam Cosmological argument is one of the oldest and most common logical arguments for the existence of God. 

The first step, of course, is determining if the premises infer the conclusion. In this deductive argument, the answer is yes. However, this does not mean the argument is sound; the premises must also be true for the argument to be sound. 

The first premise is valid intuitively. A detractor may be that sometimes things pop into existence without a cause, or a universe can pop into existence without a cause. Well, how about this story? Coming home from work, I found a large hippopotamus in my living room. Why not? The hippo is not nearly as large or as complicated as the universe- so don’t be hippo-critical. Why can’t a hippo pop in the living room if an entire complicated universe can pop into existence? 

I’d better get prepared: a snow shovel, a fifty-five-gallon barrel, ten containers of "Nature's Miracle Urine Remover, “ten bottles of Fabreeze, additional chlorine for the pool, and five gallons of “Resolve.” Gotta keep the heat up. Don’t want it to get hippothermia. Some of this is hippothetical, but itit’s's easier to believe than a universe coming into existence for no reason. 

Sorry, it's getting late.

The second Law of dynamics is true for me. I'm "breaking down," gravity makes me feel older, and I'm running out of energy. This isn't just happening to me. Everything I see tends to deteriorate over time. The universe is not an exception; it loses usable energy as it expands. Eventually, it dies of "heat death," and I don't know anyone who disagrees. Premise 2 is valid.

The second Law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of nature. In a closed system such as the universe, things move from order to non-order. Also, heat moves from hotter to cooler areas. Eventually, the universe falls into disorder and ends in heat death. This is not debatable; our universe will end. Had the universe always existed, it would have died a heat death a long time ago. 

Supporting evidence from the second video on this page

• Einstein’s theory of relativity was needed to explain the Big Bang.
• George Lemaitre used Einstein’s equations to support the idea of a beginning of the universe.  
• Using his telescope, Edward Hubble observed a redshift in distant stars, and even Einstein later agreed that the universe had a beginning.
• The discovery of the cosmic radiation background.
• The second Law of thermodynamics.
• Borde-Guth- Valenkin Theorem. (BGV) This theorem of what cosmological model is used indicates a beginning, including a multiverse. 
• The absurdity of an actual infinity

When searching online for information about the Kalam cosmological argument, you’ll find numerous sites that prove the argument is incorrect. Well, they think they do; most are looking for 100% proof. Other than in mathematics, and alcohol that’s hard to find, science does not provide proof. Remember, science is based on inductive reasoning; it designs models, collects information, and chooses the model that best fits the evidence. Of course, science continues to collect information in hopes of finding more supporting evidence or evidence contrary to the model.

Remember: when evaluating arguments, the first step is to determine whether the conclusion is inferred from the premises. If it is inferred, then the premises are assessed for plausibility, meaning they are more plausible than their opposites or detractors. Detectors are different pieces of information that may need to be evaluated. Unless you look at university philosophy sites, you can’t find credible, opposing views. Sorry, but logic is just not understood elsewhere, and online is filled with clueless opposing views. When discussing religion online, people are very logic-deficient.

I’ve read a lot of online opposing views for arguments for the existence of God, and I’ve included some of the more common ones. Enjoy

Objection: The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not prove the existence of the Christian God.

Response: Very true. However, it does infer a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and capable-of-choice Being. It sure sounds like God to me.

Objection: “Craig appeals to authority by citing scientists and experts, but he cherry-picks which experts he uses and even cherry-picks their claims. His experts disagree with him.”

Response:  This criticism focuses on Craig rather than on the evidence he cites, making it an ad hominem fallacy. Here, they claim Craig is using the cherry-picking fallacy, but they don’t understand the fallacy. The fallacy is explained with tasting one cherry on the tree, finding it sour, and proclaiming all the cherries on the tree are sour.  

Regardless,  this is an ad hominem attack. They attack the man, but not the theory.

The experts referenced—Einstein, Friedman, Lemaître, Hubble, Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin—are not fringe authorities. If appealing to leading physicists and cosmologists constitutes “cherry-picking,” those are exceptionally cherries.

Objection: “Craig denies animal suffering.”

Response: I’m not making this stuff up. Notice no attack on the argument.

Objection: “Mathematicians accept infinities, but Craig does not. He says the infinite past is incoherent, yet accepts an infinite future.”

Response:  This is a Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias. This objection contradicts itself. Craig accepts potential infinities but rejects actual infinities instantiated in reality. As explained in W. L. Craig’s On Guard, an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition. A past composed of sequential events would require traversing an infinite series, one element at a time—which is impossible. A potential infinite (like counting forward: 1, 2, 3…) never becomes an actual infinite.

Objection: “The KCA is based on outdated mathematics, claiming infinity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction.”

Response: Outdated mathematics; that’s a new one to me. Mathematics does not become “outdated.” There is no contradiction in distinguishing actual infinities from potential infinities; this is standard in both philosophy of mathematics and classical set theory. Is this an attack on the theory?

Objection: “Some people believe the universe has existed forever.”

Response: Wonderful. This is a red herring fallacy. Do any of the "some people" disagree with the premises of the argument? Wasn’t Peter Pan who holds this belief?

If the universe had no beginning, we could never have reached the present moment. Traversing an actual infinite number of past events is impossible—like trying to climb out of a bottomless pit. No matter how many steps you take, the bottom is never left behind.

Objection: “Science no longer believes in a singularity.”

Response:  Me neither! A singularity is a mathematical idealization, not a physical state. Reversing the expansion mathematically compresses space toward zero volume, which yields infinite density due to division by zero. Modern cosmology does not require a literal singularity to still support a beginning of the universe. Craig and all cosmologists use the term boundary when speaking of the beginning.

Objection: “Craig uses an A-theory of time, which contradicts relativity, and he relies on a neo-Lorentzian model that few accept.”

Response:  This is a Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias. Craig and 100% of all cosmologists agree with the A-theory of time. A-theory (tensed time) affirms a real past, present, and future.   In the B-theory (tenseless time) holds that all points in time equally exist—an unintuitive view that collapses temporal becoming. I do like the B-theory: I would only have to remember my wedding anniversary one time.

Objection: “Some things can come into existence without a cause.”

Response: Sure, they can! 

Objection: “Quantum particles come into existence without causes.”

Response: Not exactly. Quantum fluctuations arise from quantum fields or vacuum energy. But a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”—it is a sea of energy governed by physical laws. Nothingness has no properties and cannot produce anything. 

Objection: “Craig’s neo-Lorentzian view is not accepted by anyone.”

Response: This is a self-defeating statement. If Craig holds the view, then someone does. Moreover, the objection confuses the theory with unrelated claims about faster-than-light travel. Regardless of which approach a physicist uses, the conclusion is the same. It is a nice red herring.

Objection: “We know nothing about the universe before Planck time.”

Response: Planck time refers to about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. We do know conditions before Plank time:  extremely rapid expansion, low entropy, and extremely high temperature. Claiming we “know nothing” is an overstatement.

Objection: “The Hebrew word bereshit (‘in the beginning’) could refer to a multiverse.”

Response: Hebrew had no word for “universe,” much less “multiverse.” This is a red herring. “Bereshit” is not a term I’m going to use in public. 

Objection: “If God created the universe, He must be temporal and therefore not eternal.”

Response:  That is a rather profound statement. God has always existed and did so before he created time. A timeless Creator or God can initiate time itself and then relate to temporal reality without being “trapped” by it. Transcendence is not negated by interaction. I thank the blogger for such an interesting statement.

Objection: “The Kalam begs the question; the first premise assumes the conclusion.”

Response: The structure of the Kalam is not a circular argument or a begging-the-question fallacy. 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
   Arguments are circular only when the premise is accepted solely because the conclusion is already assumed. The first premise rests on intuition, metaphysical reasoning, and empirical confirmation—not on the assumption that God exists.

This one is frequently found online, but it just isn’t true.

Objection: “The universe may not need a beginning; we can only trace back to the Big Bang.”

Response:  Since I can’t prove it wrong, it must be right. Thank you for the excellent alleged certainty fallacy

I can't possibly mention all of the fallacies in arguments opposed to the argument, but hopefully this will help you give good reasons for your faith in Christ.

When searching online for information about the Kalam cosmological argument, you’ll find numerous sites that prove the argument is incorrect. Well, they think they do; most are looking for 100% proof. Other than in mathematics, and alcohol that’s hard to find, science does not provide proof. Remember, science is based on inductive reasoning; it designs models, collects information, and chooses the model that best fits the evidence. Of course, science continues to collect information in hopes of finding more supporting evidence or evidence contrary to the model.

Remember: when evaluating arguments, the first step is to determine whether the conclusion is inferred from the premises. If it is inferred, then the premises are assessed for plausibility, meaning they are more plausible than their opposites or detractors. Detracters are different pieces of information. Unless you look at university philosophy sites, you can’t find credible, opposing views. Sorry, but logic is just not understood elsewhere, and online is filled with clueless opposing views. When discussing religion online, people are very logic-deficient.

I’ve read a lot of online opposing views for arguments for the existence of God, and I’ve included some of the more common ones. Enjoy

Objection: “Craig likes to invoke authority a lot by appealing to scientists and experts, unsurprisingly, to establish his claims. Except he cherry-picks his experts and, worse, cherry-picks the claims of his experts. And his experts disagree with him.” 

Response: 

Objection:  Craig denies animal suffering.

Response: This is an ad hominem fallacy and poisoning the well. The objection is unrelated to the argument, and the objector is writing everything they can think of, even if it is irrelevant to the argument.

Objection: Mathematicians accept infinities, but Craig does not. Craig claims the infinite past is incoherent, but the infinite future is embraced. 

Response: This is gibberish. It states Craig does not accept infinities and then says he does. Hopefully, this quote from the book On Guard by WLC will clear up the confusion. 

 "the series of past events, Ghazali observes, has been formed by adding one event after another. "The series of past events is like a sequence of dominoes falling one after another, and the last domino, today, is reached. But, he argues, no series formed by adding one member after another can be an actual infinity, for you cannot pass transcend an infinite number of elements one at a time. An actual infinity refers to an endless number of things or integers that do not exist in reality.

  Potential infinity: something that tends toward infinity, such as integers. A series of integers starting at the number 1 and adding 1 is a potential infinite, but it never reaches an actual infinite because you can always add one more. For example, 1+1=2, 2+1 =3, 3+1=4. Obviously, the process moves toward infinity but never reaches it.

Objection 1. "The KCA is based on outdated views of mathematics, claiming infinity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction.

Response: Wow, mathematics doesn't become outdated. Potential infinity and actual infinity are indeed different, but there are no contradictions.

Objection: Some people swear the universe has existed forever. 

Response: If the universe had always existed, we would never have reached today. Think of trying to jump out of a bottomless pit; even if you have some success with each jump, you never get out, no matter how many times you jump.

Objection: Science no longer believes in a singularity.

Response: Singularity is a mathematical idealization; it is not a physical state that exists. The mathematical space would be zero if the universe's expansion could be reversed. What, then, is density? Since division by zero makes no sense, the density divided by zero is infinite. 

Objection: "Craig relies on understandings of time (A-Theory) that don’t appear to hold with theories of relativity. He also special pleads a neo-Lorentzian theory of physics that is fringe and not really believed by anyone (and allows for faster-than-light travel). This is to get him an absolute time frame, as opposed to relativistic time, not because the evidence points that way, but because he needs it for his KCA argument."

Response: I'm rather fond of the A-theory of time myself. In A-theory, we have past, present, and future. The B-theory of time refers to a tenseless universe without past, present, or future. In this theory, tense is an illusion. Why celebrate multiple birthdays when they all occur at the same time?

According to the new Lorentzian theory, "not really believed by anyone” is a self-defeating statement. Craig is one person, and Einstein used it for his theories.

Objection: It is possible that some things come into existence without a cause.

Response: No. 

Objection: Things do come into existence in quantum physics.

Response: Sub-atomic particles come into existence momentarily from energy in a vacuum. Energy is not nothing.  

Objection: Craig believes the neo-Lorentzian theory, which is not really believed by anyone.

Response: It is a self-defeating statement. Perhaps O can travel faster than light, but it has nothing to do with the neo-Lorentzian theory of physics.

Objection:  We don’t know anything about the universe before Plank time.

Response: This is just wrong. Plank time refers to the first trillionth, of a trillionth, of a trillionth of a second. We do know the expansion of the universe was extremely rapid, the entropy was very low, and the temperature was extremely hot. 

Objection:.The Hebrew word "Bereshit can mean in the beginning. Therefore, Genesis words in the beginning may refer to a multiverse with numerous universes coming into existence.

Response: there was no Hebrew word for universe, much less a multiverse,

Objection: If God created the universe, he is not eternal. He is trapped in time as we are and, therefore, not eternal. 

Response: Time did not exist before the Big Bang; it came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. God still transcends time.

. 

Objection:  The Kalam cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is an example of circular logic.

Response: The form of the argument is a modus ponens. In the form:

p implies q 

q

therefor q

If one's only reason for believing in a premise is that one already believes in the conclusion, then it is circular reasoning. The reason for premise 1 is based on intuitive knowledge and philosophical arguments.

Objection: The universe does not need a beginning; we can only trace back to the Big Bang. 

Response: Indeed, science cannot be traced back to before the Big Bang, but mathematically, time, space, and matter did not exist. Therefore, the reason is based on something immaterial, exceedingly powerful, like God.

Objection: It doesn't prove the Christian God.

Response: It doesn't prove God, but it certainly describes a very powerful entity or being that can create and is not constrained by time or space. It is immaterial and powerful. This sounds like God to me.