Exploring the Kalam Cosmological Argument: Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most compelling and widely debated arguments for the existence of God. It deals with one of the oldest philosophical questions: **Did the universe have a beginning?** If it did, what caused it to come into existence? This article delves into the key aspects of the argument, the scientific evidence supporting it, and the philosophical implications as presented by philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig.

What Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

The **Kalam Cosmological Argument** asserts that the universe had a finite beginning and therefore must have a cause that transcends the universe. The argument is built upon two key premises:
1. **Whatever begins to exist has a cause.** 2. **The universe began to exist.**
From these premises, the conclusion follows: **The universe must have a cause for its existence.** According to Craig, this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal. The attributes of such a cause, Craig argues, point to the existence of a creator—God.

Motivation Behind the Argument

Craig’s fascination with the origins of the universe began during his childhood. The question of where the universe came from—whether it had a beginning or had existed eternally—captured his imagination early on. As he progressed in his academic studies, he discovered that some of the greatest minds in philosophy had tackled this issue. Inspired by their work, Craig decided to focus his doctoral thesis on the **Kalam Cosmological Argument**, which had its roots in Islamic philosophy.
This project led to years of research, resulting in several books defending the argument. Craig’s goal was to assess whether there were compelling reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning and to explore the philosophical and scientific evidence that could support this conclusion.

Scientific Evidence: The Universe’s Beginning

While the **Kalam Cosmological Argument** primarily deals with philosophical reasoning, Craig’s work also considers scientific discoveries. In particular, Craig was astonished by the findings of contemporary cosmology. The **Big Bang Theory**, which posits that the universe began to exist at a specific point in the finite past, aligned with the argument’s claim that the universe had a beginning.
Craig highlights the **standard model of astrophysics**, which asserts that before the Big Bang, there was nothing—no time, no space, and no matter. This supports the argument that the universe had an absolute beginning.
As scientific models have evolved, the concept of a **multiverse**—the idea that our universe is just one of many universes—has gained traction. Some argue that the multiverse could suggest that our universe was “squeezed off” from a prior universe. However, Craig points to the **Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem** from 2003, which shows that even if there are multiple universes, the process of creating new universes cannot be extended into the infinite past. In other words, even a multiverse must have had a beginning.

Philosophical Considerations: Can Time Be Infinite?

Philosophically, Craig’s argument also hinges on the question of whether an infinite past is possible. Craig’s research began with this question: **Is it possible for the universe to have existed infinitely into the past, or must it have had a beginning?** He explored the concept of an **infinite regress** of past events and concluded that an actual infinite past is not logically possible.
He found support for this idea not only in philosophical reasoning but also in contemporary cosmology. While some models propose ways to avoid the conclusion of a beginning, Craig argues that none have successfully demonstrated that the universe could exist without a starting point.

Challenges and Modern Theories

In addition to the multiverse theory, other cosmological models have emerged, such as **brane cosmology**. This theory suggests that universes could be embedded in higher-dimensional spaces and that collisions between these spaces (or branes) could result in new universes being created. While these models are mathematically interesting, Craig argues that they do not negate the need for a beginning. He explains that these models, too, cannot be extended into the infinite past.
For Craig, the scientific evidence remains clear: There are no empirically tenable models of a universe with an infinite past.

Time and Relativity: Does the Argument Depend on a Particular View of Time?

One significant philosophical question related to the **Kalam Cosmological Argument** is whether it depends on a **tensed theory of time** (also known as the **A-theory of time**). This theory holds that time flows, with the present moment being special, and that past and future events do not exist in the same way that present events do.
Craig subscribes to a tensed theory of time, which he argues is more compatible with the idea of the universe having a definite beginning. To support his views on time, Craig wrote a two-volume series defending the tensed theory against the **tenseless theory of time** (or **B-theory of time**), which suggests that all points in time are equally real, and time does not “flow.”
Craig also addresses how his view of time fits within the framework of **special relativity**, which denies the existence of a preferred reference frame. He adopts a **neo-Lorentzian interpretation** of relativity, which maintains that there is an absolute frame of reference, though it is undetectable by us. This interpretation allows Craig to reconcile his view of time with modern physics.

Does Science Support Theology?

One criticism of Craig’s defense of the **Kalam Cosmological Argument** is that he selectively uses scientific theories to support his theological conclusions. Critics argue that while Craig embraces **Big Bang cosmology** because it supports the idea of a beginning, he rejects **relativity theory** because it suggests a tenseless approach to time.
In response, Craig emphasizes that his position on time is philosophical, not scientific. He believes that a tensed theory of time is best integrated with relativity using a **neo-Lorentzian** interpretation, which some physicists still support. He also points out that philosophical interpretations of scientific theories are open to debate.

Conclusion: The Beginning of the Universe and Its Implications

The **Kalam Cosmological Argument** remains a powerful tool for those arguing in favor of a transcendent cause for the universe. Both philosophical reasoning and scientific evidence—particularly from cosmology—seem to support the idea that the universe had a beginning. For Craig, this points to the existence of a cause that transcends time, space, and matter, which he identifies as God.
Although some models attempt to avoid the conclusion that the universe had a beginning, Craig argues that none of these models have been able to extend infinitely into the past. Ultimately, the **Kalam Cosmological Argument** not only raises important philosophical questions about the nature of the universe but also invites us to consider the possibility of a creator behind it all.
If you want to explore more about this argument, check out the video where William Lane Craig explains the **Kalam Cosmological Argument** in detail: William Lane Craig Retrospective I: Kalam Cosmological Argument.