The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam (medieval Islamic scholasticism) from which many of its key ideas originated. [1] Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig was principally responsible for revitalizing these ideas for modern academic discourse through his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), as well as other publications.
The argument's principal underpinning idea is the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinities and of a temporally past-infinite universe, traced by Craig to 11th-century Persian Muslim scholastic philosopher Al-Ghazali. This feature distinguishes it from other cosmological arguments, such as that of Thomas Aquinas, which rests on the impossibility of a causally ordered infinite regress, and those of Leibniz and Samuel Clarke, which refer to the principle of sufficient reason. [2]
Since Craig's original publication, the Kalam cosmological argument has elicited public debate between Craig and Graham Oppy, Adolf Grünbaum, J. L. Mackie and Quentin Smith, and has been used in Christian apologetics. [3] [4] According to Michael Martin, the cosmological arguments presented by Craig, Bruce Reichenbach, and Richard Swinburne are "among the most sophisticated and well-argued in contemporary theological philosophy". [5]
The most prominent form of the Kalam cosmological argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, is expressed in two parts, as an initial syllogism followed by further philosophical analysis. [6]
The Kalam cosmological argument is a deductive argument. Therefore, if both premises are true, the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily.
Craig argues that the cause of the universe necessarily embodies specific properties, in being: [7]
Based upon this, he appends a further premise and conclusion: [7]
Craig notes the theological implications that follow from the final conclusion of this argument. [8]
The Kalam cosmological argument was influenced by the concept of the prime mover, introduced by Aristotle. It originates in the works of theologian and philosopher John Philoponus (490–570 AD) [9] and was developed substantially under the medieval Islamic scholastic tradition during the Islamic Golden Age. Important historical proponents include Al-Kindi, [10] Al-Ghazali [11] and St. Bonaventure. [12] [13] [14]
One of the earliest formulations of the argument is described by Islamic philosopher and theologian Al-Ghazali: [15]
The argument developed as a concept within Islamic theology between the 9th and 12th centuries, refined in the 11th century by Al-Ghazali ( The Incoherence of the Philosophers ) and in the 12th by Ibn Rushd (Averroes). [16] It reached medieval Christian philosophy in the 13th century and was discussed by Bonaventure as well as Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica (I, q.2, a.3) and Summa Contra Gentiles (I, 13).
Islamic perspectives may be divided into positive Aristotelian responses strongly supporting the argument, such as those by Al-Kindi and Averroes, and negative responses critical of it, including those by Al-Ghazali and Muhammad Iqbal. [17] Al-Ghazali was unconvinced by the first-cause arguments of Al-Kindi, arguing that only the infinite per se (that is an essentially ordered infinite series) is impossible, arguing for the possibility of the infinite per accidens (that is an accidentally ordered infinite series). He writes: [18]
Muhammad Iqbal also stated: [17]
According to atheist philosopher Quentin Smith, "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." [19]
The Kalam cosmological argument has received criticism from philosophers such as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, Adolf Grunbaum, Michael Martin, Quentin Smith and Wes Morriston as well as physicists Sean M. Carroll, Paul Davies, Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger. [20]
Modern discourse encompasses the fields of both philosophy and science (e.g. the fields of quantum physics and cosmology), which Bruce Reichenbach summarises as: [21]
Since the temporal ordering of events is central, the Kalam argument also brings issues of the nature of time into the discussion. [22]
Craig and James Sinclair have stated that the first premise is obviously true, at the least more plausibly true than its negation. [23] Craig offers three reasons to support the premise: [24]
According to Reichenbach, "the Causal Principle has been the subject of extended criticism", which can be divided into philosophical and scientific criticisms. [25]
Graham Oppy, J. L. Mackie and Wes Morriston have objected to the intuitiveness of the first premise. [26] [27] [28] Oppy states:
Mackie affirms that there is no good reason to assume a priori that an uncaused beginning of all things is impossible. Moreover, that the Causal Principle cannot be extrapolated to the universe from inductive experience. He appeals to David Hume's thesis ( An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding ) that effects without causes can be conceived in the mind, and that what is conceivable in the mind is possible in the real world. [29] This argument has been criticised by Bruce Reichenbach and G.E.M. Anscombe, who point out the phenomenological and logical problems in inferring factual possibility from conceivability. [30] [31] Craig notes: [32] [33]
Morriston asserts that causal laws are physical processes for which we have intuitive knowledge in the context of events within time and space, but that such intuitions do not hold true for the beginning of time itself. He states: [34]
In reply, Craig has maintained that causal laws are unrestricted metaphysical truths that are "not contingent upon the properties, causal powers, and dispositions of the natural kinds of substances which happen to exist", remarking: [35]
A common objection to premise one appeals to the phenomenon of quantum indeterminacy, where, at the subatomic level, the causal principle ("everything that begins to exist has a cause") appears to break down. [36] Craig proposes that the phenomenon of indeterminism is specific to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, pointing out that this is only one of a number of different interpretations, some of which he states are fully deterministic (mentioning David Bohm) and none of which are as yet known to be true. He concludes that subatomic physics is not a proven exception to the first premise. [37]
Philosopher Quentin Smith has cited the example of virtual particles, which appear and disappear from observation, apparently at random, to assert the tenability of uncaused natural phenomena. [38] In his book A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing , cosmologist Lawrence Krauss has proposed how quantum mechanics can explain how space-time and matter can emerge from 'nothing' (referring to the quantum vacuum). Philosopher Michael Martin has also referred to quantum vacuum fluctuation models to support the idea of a universe with uncaused beginnings. He writes: [39]
Philosopher of science David Albert has criticised the use of the term 'nothing' in describing the quantum vacuum. In a review of Krauss's book, he states: [40]
Likewise, Craig has argued that the quantum vacuum, in containing quantifiable, measurable energy, cannot be described as 'nothing', therefore, that phenomena originating from the quantum vacuum cannot be described as 'uncaused'. On the topic of virtual particles, he writes: [41]
Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has stated that even "the absence of space, time and matter" cannot truly be defined as 'nothing' given that the laws of physics are still present, though it would be "as close to nothing as you can get". [42]
Craig defends premise two using both scientific and philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past, covering the topics of cosmology, physics and a philosophical examination of actual infinities.
For physical evidence, Craig appeals to:
Professor Alexander Vilenkin, one of the authors of the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem, writes: [45]
According to Vilenkin and co-author Alan Guth, the past boundary described by the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem does not necessarily represent a cosmic beginning, instead the beginning of cosmic inflation. [46] Though it "opens the door" for theories other than an absolute beginning, in a 2012 lecture, Vilenkin would discuss problems with alternative theories that would claim to avoid a cosmological beginning (including eternal inflation, cyclic and emergent models) concluding: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning". [47] In publications, he would propose that the Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem is sufficient evidence for a beginning of the universe. [48] [49] [50]
Craig has stated that, if anything existed before the past boundary described by the theorem, it would be a non-classical region described by an as-yet-undetermined theory of quantum gravity. He refers to statements by Vilenkin [51] that, in such a scenario the non-classical region, rather than the boundary, would then be the beginning of the universe. He concludes, "either way, the universe began to exist." [52]
Victor J. Stenger has referred to the Aguirre–Gratton model [53] for eternal inflation as an exemplar by which to avoid a cosmic beginning. [54] In correspondence with Stenger, Vilenkin remarked how the Aguirre–Gratton model attempts to evade a beginning by reversing the "arrow of time" at t = 0, but that: "This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe." [55]
For philosophical evidence of the finitude of the past, Craig refers to:
Accordingly, he argues:
Philosopher Andrew Loke also characterizes the metaphysical problems of a beginningless universe and of actual infinites existing in reality [60] and Ben Waters has presented the story of Methuselah's Diary as a refinement of the tale of Tristram Shandy. [61]
Craig maintains that, though it is metaphysically impossible for actual infinities to exist in the real world, they (and the absurdities that attend their existence in the real world) are fully describable via mathematics, therefore logically possible. [62] He also distinguishes between actual infinities and potential infinities, stating that it is fully possible for potential infinites to exist in the real world, in contrast to the former. [1]
Thomist philosopher Edward Feser has remarked that the Kalam argument is based upon a presentist theory of time in which past and future events do not exist, declaring that this would be incompatible with objections against an eternal past based upon Hilbert's Hotel: [63]
Craig affirms that the simultaneous existence of the enumerated objects is irrelevant, so long as past events have been real at some point, they are definite and discrete and can be counted. [64] [65] He refers to an example by Aquinas of a blacksmith who from eternity past has used and destroyed successive hammers. Even if the hammers no longer exist, he notes that the set of used hammers would comprise an actual infinite. [66] He also argues that the absurdities attending an actual infinite existing in reality still apply if the counted objects no longer exist: [67]
Though an observer may, in that context, be tempted to refer to an endless series of future events as an actual infinite (by reasoning similarly that there will be future events) he proposes that an endless future would only qualify as a potential infinite. [65]
According to Feser, Craig has not justified why the enumerability of past events implies their equivalence to concrete objects in the real world, such as hotel rooms and hotel guests. He contends they are more analogous to abstract objects, such as the set of natural numbers. [68]
In a critique of Craig's book The Kalam Cosmological Argument, published in 1979, Michael Martin writes: [69]
Martin adds that Craig has not justified his claim of creation ex nihilo , remarking that the universe may have been created from pre-existing material in a timeless or eternal state. Moreover, that Craig takes his argument too far beyond what his premises allow in stating that the creator is greater than the universe. For this, he cites the example of a parent "creating" a child who eventually becomes greater than he or she. [70]
In the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, published in 2009, Craig and James Sinclair present a philosophical analysis of the properties of the cause of the universe, arguing that they follow by entailment from the initial syllogism of the Kalam cosmological argument: [7]
Craig concludes that an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful", noting the theological implications of this union of properties: [71]
The Kalam cosmological argument is based on the A-theory of time, also known as the "tensed theory of time" or presentism, in which past and future events do not exist in reality (they have existed, or will exist, but do not exist now) and only the present exists. [72] This is opposed to the B-theory of time, also known as the "tenseless theory of time" or eternalism, in which past, present and future events co-exist, the passage of time is an illusion of consciousness and there is no privilege to the present other than as a frame of reference. [73] Craig explains: [74]
Craig has defended the A-theory against objections from J. M. E. McTaggart and hybrid A–B theorists. [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] Philosopher Yuri Balashov has criticised Craig for adopting a neo‐Lorentzian interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity to defend the A-theory, contending that the physical evidence instead supports the standard Spacetime Interpretation, which is compatible with the B-theory. [80] He writes: [81]
Craig has criticised Balashov for adopting a verificationist methodology, noting that important metaphysical and theological arguments underpinning the A-theory had been left entirely unaddressed in his appraisal. He would defend the Lorentzian Interpretation against Balashov's objections, claiming that correct interpretation of Special Relativity is not merely a physical, but also a metaphysical question. [82]
In a 2020 interview, Craig proposed that the Kalam cosmological argument could be adapted to the B-theory of time by: [83]
Under the B-theory, scientific evidence for the finitude of the past would still be valid and the argument as a whole, though damaged and requiring reformulation, would still be tenable. Philosopher Ben Waters has also argued that a defense of the Kalam cosmological argument does not require a commitment to the A-theory. [84]
A cosmological argument, in natural theology and the philosophy of religion, is an argument which asserts that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects. A cosmological argument can also sometimes be referred to as an argument from universal causation, an argument from first cause, the causal argument, or the prime mover argument. Whichever term is employed, there are two basic variants of the argument, each with subtle yet important distinctions: in esse (essentiality), and in fieri (becoming).
The multiverse is the hypothetical set of all universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "flat universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", "multiple universes", "plane universes", "parent and child universes", "many universes", or "many worlds". One common assumption is that the multiverse is a "patchwork quilt of separate universes all bound by the same laws of physics."
Determinism is the philosophical view that all events in the universe, including human decisions and actions, are causally inevitable. Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have developed from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and considerations. Like eternalism, determinism focuses on particular events rather than the future as a concept. The opposite of determinism is indeterminism, or the view that events are not deterministically caused but rather occur due to chance. Determinism is often contrasted with free will, although some philosophers claim that the two are compatible.
In the philosophy of space and time, eternalism is an approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all existence in time is equally real, as opposed to presentism or the growing block universe theory of time, in which at least the future is not the same as any other time. Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places, and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time.
William Lane Craig is an American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, author, and Wesleyan theologian who upholds the view of Molinism and neo-Apollinarianism. He is a professor of philosophy at Houston Christian University and at the Talbot School of Theology of Biola University.
The characterization of the universe as finely tuned intends to explain why the known constants of nature, such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant, and the like, have their measured values rather than some other arbitrary values. According to the "fine-tuned universe" hypothesis, if these constants' values were too different from what they are, "life as we know it" could not exist. In practice, this hypothesis is formulated in terms of dimensionless physical constants.
The existence of God is a subject of debate in the philosophy of religion and theology. A wide variety of arguments for and against the existence of God can be categorized as logical, empirical, metaphysical, subjective or scientific. In philosophical terms, the question of the existence of God involves the disciplines of epistemology and ontology and the theory of value.
Philosophy of space and time is the branch of philosophy concerned with the issues surrounding the ontology and epistemology of space and time. While such ideas have been central to philosophy from its inception, the philosophy of space and time was both an inspiration for and a central aspect of early analytic philosophy. The subject focuses on a number of basic issues, including whether time and space exist independently of the mind, whether they exist independently of one another, what accounts for time's apparently unidirectional flow, whether times other than the present moment exist, and questions about the nature of identity.
Aseity is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It refers to the monotheistic belief that God does not depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end, and has within himself his own reason of existence. This represents God as absolutely independent and self-existent by nature. While commonly discussed in Christian theology, many Jewish and Muslim theologians have also believed God to be independent in this way. This quality of independence and self-existence has been affirmed under various names by theologians going back to antiquity, though the use of the word 'aseity' began only in the Middle Ages.
The Quinque viæ are five logical arguments for the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa Theologica. They are:
Eternal inflation is a hypothetical inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory.
William F. Vallicella is an American philosopher.
Since the emergence of the Big Bang theory as the dominant physical cosmological paradigm, there have been a variety of reactions by religious groups regarding its implications for religious cosmologies. Some accept the scientific evidence at face value, some seek to harmonize the Big Bang with their religious tenets, and some reject or ignore the evidence for the Big Bang theory.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to metaphysics:
Temporal finitism is the doctrine that time is finite in the past. The philosophy of Aristotle, expressed in such works as his Physics, held that although space was finite, with only void existing beyond the outermost sphere of the heavens, time was infinite. This caused problems for mediaeval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian philosophers who, primarily creationist, were unable to reconcile the Aristotelian conception of the eternal with the Genesis creation narrative.
The eternity of the world is the question of whether the world has a beginning in time or has existed for eternity. It was a concern for ancient philosophers as well as theologians and philosophers of the 13th century, and is also of interest to modern philosophers and scientists. The problem became a focus of a dispute in the 13th century, when some of the works of Aristotle, who believed in the eternity of the world, were rediscovered in the Latin West. This view conflicted with the view of the Catholic Church that the world had a beginning in time. The Aristotelian view was prohibited in the Condemnations of 1210–1277.
The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a 1979 book by the philosopher William Lane Craig, in which the author offers a contemporary defense of the Kalām cosmological argument and argues for the existence of God, with an emphasis on the alleged metaphysical impossibility of an infinite regress of past events. First, Craig argues that the universe began to exist, using two philosophical and two scientific arguments. Second, Craig argues that whatever begins to exist has a cause that caused it to begin to exist. Finally, Craig argues that this cause is a personal creator who changelessly and independently willed the beginning of the universe.
The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin (BGV) theorem is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary. It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003. The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates.
"Why is there anything at all?" or "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question about the reason for basic existence which has been raised or commented on by a range of philosophers and physicists, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Martin Heidegger, who called it "the fundamental question of metaphysics".
Andrew Ter Ern Loke is a Singaporean Christian theologian and philosopher. He is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University. He has made contributions to the fields of Systematic Theology, Science and Religion, Philosophy of Religion, and New Testament studies. He is a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God. He is an elected Fellow of the International Society for Science and Religion.