The Kalam Cosmological Argument
I ran into the Kalam Cosmological Argument in Matt Nelson's “God’s Existence and the Beginning of the Universe: Part I” piece. Supposedly, this argument can be used to prove the existence of a God or creator of the universe.
There are two premises for this argument:
- The first one is that everything that begins to exist, has a reason for existence. This is also known as the principle of causality.
- The second premise is that the universe began to exist.
- Therefore, there must be a cause for the universe’s existence.
To say that the first premise is false seems very hard in the world we are living in today. How can something come out of nothing? If that were true, then we should at least notice this occurring around us.
Oooh, a car just showed up on my driveway. I wonder how that happened?
But we don’t, because something does not just come out of nothing. There is always a cause for something that exists. So how then do we explain the universe we live in? Did it come out of nothing or did something or some higher power cause it to exist?
Of course, being a religious person myself, the answer for me would be, that God created the universe we live in and everything in it. But I'm not writing this to force my beliefs on you. I just thought that this was a very compelling argument for the existence of a creator.
Does it unequivocally prove the existence of God? No. But it does make you wonder, right?