The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This is, in my opinion, is the best argument for the existence of God. It has been revolutionized by the likes of William Lane Craig (WLC) for the past 30 years, but its history has been rooted back to Islamic medieval thought. It is WLC"s version that I will be defending in this debate. This argument is as follows: P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause P2. The universe began to exist Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause Explanation of P1: What this means is everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. This premise is to rid ourselves of the notion or postulation that things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing, such as a horse popping into existence out of nothing right beside me as I type this. Such a concept goes completely against a reasonable person"s intuition and rationale, and I hope that me and my opponent don"t spend too much time (if any) on the question of whether things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing. Explanation of P2: It is worth mentioning that when I say "universe", I mean all space, matter, time, and natural energy that exists, which would include all natural realms that we are unaware of here on earth. Now, since the early 20th century, it was discovered that our universe began to exist at some point in the finite past. This discovery was originally made by Albert Einstein from a mathematical standpoint, and it was observed in the late 1920"s by American astronomer Edwin Hubble, as he observed galaxies moving away from us, galaxies that were shifted to the red end of the spectrum (Doppler Effect). Well, if galaxies are currently moving away from us into the future, then it follows that if we go back into the past, galaxies would thereby move closer to us. .until everything, all matter and energy gets converted into one single point, what we would call a "singulartity". .a point to which literally nothing existed. This cosmological model became known as the "big bang theory" well before the television show (haha). This cosmological model has been confirmed by other empirical observations and has stood the test of time. .and it is has the most scientific evidence supporting it as it stands today. Explanation of P2 (continued): Another independent argument for P2 is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the amount of available energy in our universe is decreasing, and the entropy needed for a life permitting universe would have had to be low. .and this low entropy had to be an INITIAL condition, otherwise there is no way to explain how we could have such low entropy if the universe started with high, chaotic entropy. Explanation of P2 (continued): We also have philosophical reasons we can give to support a finite universe, and these arguments are based on the impossibility of an actual infinity. To demonstrate this, consider the following analogy. Consider any event in time. .now, in order for any event to come to pass, there would have had to have been an infinite number of events which preceded it, but how can one event come to pass, if an infinite number of events preceded it? This would be similar to someone telling you "I will give you a million dollars, but before I do, I have to get permission from Bob". And Bob say "I will give you a million dollars, but before I do, I have to get permission from Steve". Now suppose this pattern continues on and on and on for infinity (through infinite time and infinite people), will you ever get the million dollars? No. Because every event X is dependent upon an infinite number of event X"s, and each one has to be traversed in order to move to the next event. So if infinity is a concept that exists in reality, then that would mean that an infinite number of events had to already come to past, because after all, how else would we arrive at the present moment? Infinity is not something that can be possessed, or traversed. It is a mere concept that cannot exist in reality. If the universe never began to exist, then time is infinite, and the events in time are also infinite. But that is clearly false for reasons I just mentioned. It is because of these reasons why we can logically conclude that there had to have been one single event which is the cause for all other events. If my opponent thinks otherwise, then he must explain how infinity can possibly be traversed, and I don"t think he can do this. It is worth mentioning that all of the explanations for P2 are independent, which means that even if my opponent refutes one, he has to deal with the others. But I don't think he can refute any, so it isn't really much of a problem. Just felt it was worth mentioning. Explanation for Conclusion: If the first two premises of the argument is true, then the conclusion logically follows. But what could be the cause of the universe? Well remember, the universe is all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM). If the universe began to exist, and if we are NOT to believe that it popped into being uncaused out of nothing, then the universe had to have a cause. The cause could not itself be made up of STEM, because STEM is exactly what began to exist as key components of the universe. So the cause had to be timeless and immaterial. The cause of the universe also had to have been necessary, meaning the cause could not be a product of anything prior or "before" it, because if it were, then the question of origins would be pushed back one step further, which would lead to the same absurdities that I"ve argued against in P2 and actual infinities. The cause would have also had to have a free will, with the capability of eternally having the will to create EXACTLY when it wanted to create. The cause also had to be a being on tremendous power, being able to create from nothing. So, what do we have here? 1. Immaterial 2. Timeless (before the universe) 3. Free will 4. Necessary in its existence 5. Omnipotent We can conclude that the cause of the universe must have (and has) these attributes, and we can conclude this without picking up any Bible, Quran, or other religious book. As we can see above, it would seem as if the only being capable (by definition) of creating such a finely tuned, finite universe would be the being that has traditionally been called, "God". If and only if we are to disregard the notion that things pop into being uncaused out of nothing, then it is apparent that the concept of eternity exists. .. either the universe is eternal, or there was a eternal Supreme Being. .either way, something had to always be there. The only question is, is that something the universe, or is that something God? I think I've just made the case that this "something" was what we call. .. God. In closing, I'd like to say that before the 20th century, the worldview of the times was that the universe was static and eternal. But before Copernicus, before Galileo, before Newton, before Einstein, and before Hawking. .. Christians have always maintained that the universe began to exist, as stated in Genesis 1:1 "In the BEGINNING, God created the heavens and the earth". So modern science and contemporary cosmology has confirmed in the past 100 years what Christians have been saying for over 2,000 years. Coincidence? I don't think so. I rest my case.