The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is undoubtedly one of the most talked about and debated arguments ever offered in favor of theism. Assuredly, the most popular version of this argument is the one defended by philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig (WLC) that is as follows:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.1
The prevalence of this argument has not gone unnoticed by atheist philosophers such as the late Quentin Smith who once wrote "...a count of the articles in the philosophy journals shows that more articles have been published about Craig's defense of the Kalam argument than have been published about any other philosopher's contemporary formulation of an argument for God's existence."2
And while thinkers from various disciplines continue to debate the truth or falsehood of the premises therein, my purpose in this piece is to address a commonly offered criticism of the KCA that I believe to be ill-conceived. While the objection in question can take various forms, it is often put something like this:
"The KCA isn't even an argument for God's existence because the argument never mentions the word God in the premises or the conclusion."3
Now, the astute reader may be thinking, "Well, technically, that is true!" However, just because an objection is technically true, it does not follow that it is comprehensive in nature. Meaning, if one is willing to dig a little deeper, it becomes clear that this objection only considers the KCA at a surface level. And as I hope to demonstrate, I think that there are at least 3 reasons this ill-conceived objection is unhelpful at best, or a dodge at worst.
First, there are versions of the KCA that do explicitly include God in the premises and/or the conclusion. For example, in his article "Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God," philosopher Thomas Metcalf shares the following version of the KCA:
1. If something begins to exist, its existence was caused by something.
2. The universe, including time and space, cannot go back infinitely far in time.
3. Therefore, the universe began to exist.
4. Therefore, the universe’s existence was caused by something.
5. The most-plausible example of a creator of time and space would be something like God.
6. Therefore, God exists.4
2. The universe, including time and space, cannot go back infinitely far in time.
3. Therefore, the universe began to exist.
4. Therefore, the universe’s existence was caused by something.
5. The most-plausible example of a creator of time and space would be something like God.
6. Therefore, God exists.4
So, if the skeptic is insistent that the argument must include the word or concept "God," they should consider this version of the KCA and engage with the premises.
Second, as the quote shared prior from the late atheist philosopher Quentin Smith serves to illustrate, even many academics who reject the KCA acknowledge that it is "an argument for God's existence" and believe the argument worthy of a response.5
Finally, it would seem strange for skeptics to object to WLC's KCA because God is not in the premises or the conclusion when one considers what Craig argues can be inferred about the cause if the premises are more plausible than their negations:
"The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument that can be simply formulated. Premise one: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Things don’t come into being from nothing. Two: The universe began to exist. There’s good philosophical and scientific evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had a beginning. And from that, it follows, three: Therefore, a cause of the universe exists.
And then you do a conceptual analysis of what it is to be a cause of space and time, matter, and energy, and I think you’re able to show that a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe exists..."6
"The Kalam cosmological argument is an argument that can be simply formulated. Premise one: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Things don’t come into being from nothing. Two: The universe began to exist. There’s good philosophical and scientific evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had a beginning. And from that, it follows, three: Therefore, a cause of the universe exists.
And then you do a conceptual analysis of what it is to be a cause of space and time, matter, and energy, and I think you’re able to show that a beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, personal creator of the universe exists..."6
So, this potentially puts the skeptic who objects to the KCA because God is not in the premises or the conclusion in an awkward position because a cause of space and time, matter, and energy that is beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful and personal sounds a lot like God!7 Now, surely one might object to WLC's conceptual analysis, but to do so because the argument doesn't explicitly use the name God seems misguided.
In conclusion, if one objects to the KCA because God is not explicitly named in the premises or the conclusion, they should reconsider doing so for the following reasons:
1. There are formulations of the KCA that do mention God explicitly. Although this requirement seems unnecessary to me, if for some reason it is necessary for the skeptic, he or she should consider a version of the argument that explicitly includes the name God.
2. As made clear by the late Quentin Smith, the KCA is considered an argument for God's existence by many academics.
2. As made clear by the late Quentin Smith, the KCA is considered an argument for God's existence by many academics.
3. If the premises lead to the conclusion that the universe had a cause, the conceptual analysis of the cause gives us a being that sounds very much like what most people mean by God; therefore, at the very least, the argument seems worthy of consideration.
Courage and Godspeed,
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Footnotes:
1. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.
2. Quentin Smith, "Kalam Cosmological Arguments for Atheism", in Michael Martin (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 183
3. Popular online skeptic Matt Dillahunty offers this type of objection here; further, you can read some of WLC's responses to Dillahunty's objections here.
4. Thomas Metcalf, "Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God," Nov. 14, 2021.
5. Readers may also find it of interest that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy includes the Kalam Cosmological argument in their entry on the Cosmological Argument. It states:
6. What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?, The One Minute Apologist with Dr. William Lane Craig.
Related Posts
Cosmology, the Big Bang, and the Beginning
7 Scientific Reasons to Conclude that the Universe Began to Exist
Does Quantum Physics Provide an Exception to Premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
Comments