Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of the God

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This argument is straightforward and consists of three basic premises:

1. Whatever comes into existence has a cause.

2. The universe came into existence.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The first premise, "Whatever comes into existence has a cause," is naturally appealing and is supported by everyday experience and scientific evidence. Everything that comes into existence—whether a tree, a building, a mountain, or a sea—must have a cause. Nothing can come into existence without a cause.

The second premise, "The universe came into existence," is supported by both philosophical arguments and scientific evidence.

Philosophical Argument for the Existence of the Universe

Philosophically, the concept of an infinite past presents a problem. If the universe had no beginning, it would imply an infinite regression of events, which is impossible. This is because an actual infinite cannot exist; it is a concept that leads to contradictions and paradoxes. For example, if the past were infinite, we would never reach the present moment, as an infinite number of events would precede any moment.

Scientific Argument for the Existence of the Universe

Scientifically, the Big Bang Theory provides substantial evidence that the universe had a beginning. According to this theory, the universe expanded from an extremely hot and dense singularity about 13.8 billion years ago. This expansion marks the beginning of time and space. The discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation and the observed expansion of the universe support this theory, suggesting that the universe is not eternal but had a definite starting point.

Conclusion

From these two premises, it logically follows that the universe also has a cause. If everything that comes into existence has a cause, and the universe came into existence, then the universe must have a cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument cannot be refuted.

There are two principles:

1. Every existing thing must have a cause.

2. Every contingent thing must have a cause.

The first principle is completely incorrect due to the problem of infinite regress. Therefore, according to this principle, the question of who created God cannot be asked, as the question itself is wrong.

The second principle is entirely correct, stating that every contingent thing has a cause. According to this principle, one cannot ask who created God because God is not contingent.

Now, if someone asks, "If God created everything, then who created God?" this question is incorrect because the argument's first premise is that every contingent thing has a cause, while God is not contingent, nor is God created. Therefore, the question itself is invalid.

If someone says, "If God created everything, then who created God?" this question is incorrect because God has no creation, no beginning, and is beyond creation and beginnings.

Your question would be valid only if you first prove that God is created and contingent.

In summary, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, God's existence is affirmed.

Sarjeel Sir