The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[Belacqua]

Hi all. I'm curious if any of you can refute the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence


Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.

Step 2: The Universe began to exist. 

This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.

Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.

Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.

This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?

Regards,
Joseph.

As you see, some people are as yet unpersuaded that the universe began to exist. I'm no expert; I can only repeat objections made by others.

First, when some physicists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss) talk about the universe beginning to exist, they say that it is made from some already-existing thing. Quantum fluctuations, or something like that. So in fact their theory demands that there was already something existing -- it's not the beginning of everything. 

Then there are all kinds of wilder theories about universes "budding off" from other universes, in some kind of multiverse speculation. I have no idea how serious this is, but it again posits that there was existence before our universe began. 

Though Kalam is a Prime Mover argument, I find it weaker than the Aristotelian/Thomist version. The A/T version works whether there was a temporal beginning point or not. 

Since it started with Aristotle, I think you'll agree that the argument only goes so far as to assert that SOMETHING is the prime cause. To get from there to the God of the Bible -- the revealed God who sent his son, etc. -- requires a great deal more argument above and beyond a Prime Mover.