## Kalam Cosmological ArgumentWilliam Craig in his bookThe Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979), revived an old sixth century version of the cosmological argument. The argument actually originated from a Christian philosopher in Alexandria in the sixth century but was later developed by medieval Islamic theologians of the Kalam school.
## The Basic Argument of the KalamThe basic argument of the Kalam is as follows:1. Everything that begins to exists has a cause for its existence 2. The universe began to exist (i.e. it is not infinite) Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.
The first premise states that nothing which originates in time can be causeless. In other words, if it
The second premise is rooted in the Kalam school's skepticism of the concept of infinity. They argued that while infinity may be possible in the mathematician's mind it is ## 1.
Craig claims that even in mathematics, infinity has paradoxical implications. And although it may form a coherent mathematical system, it has no bearing on the existence of actual infinity in the real world. He gives an example of how thinking about an actual infinity leads to absurd implications. Consider a library that contains an infinite number of books. Each book is sequentially numbered in a one to one correspondence with natural numbers (i.e. 1,2,3 and so on). This means that every possible natural number is printed on some book. Now if one were to add another book to the library it would be impossible to allocate a natural numbers to it since all the numbers have already been taken. This, according to Craig is absurd, "since entities that exist in reality can be numbered". |

The radioactive isotope radium-224 has a half life of 3.64 days. So if we study an atom of radium-224 for 3.64 days we will have an even chance of witnessing its decay. But we cannot know just when it will decay-this particular atom might wait for years-nor can we, in principle or in practice, assign a causeto its decay. All we can know are probabilities. [5] |

Note that he mentioned it is not even possible *in principle*. In other words quantum mechanics, one of the most widely confirmed scientific theories known, says that it is simply not possible to do, not that our equipment or knowledge is incomplete. Thus causation seems to break down in the subatomic realm. Yet this is exactly the condition the universe was in at the beginning. The universe, was in the domain of quantum mechanics at the beginning, the domain where causality breaks down.[6]

- Craig's concept of infinity is mistaken.
- The universe may or may not have a beginning in time. The verdict is still out, thus it cannot be used as a
*premise*to prove his argument. - Causation is not an
*a priori*principle. - Causation is not a universally valid empirical principle, as quantum mechanics have shown.

Back to the top

a. | Entropy is mathematically represented as the ratio of the change of energy over temperature (dQ/T). It is a measurement of "reversibility" and is a measure of a very fundamental fact of nature. Things left to themselves tend to degrade. Thus a hot cup of coffee left at room temperature will cool down to room temperature. In short, it measures the natural decay of order into chaos. |

b. | See for instance "The Contrarian Theological Afterword" in the book The Whole Shebang (1998) by Timothy Ferris. |

1. | Martin, Atheism, A Philosophical Justification: p101-103 |

2. | ibid: p103-105 |

3. | Poidevin, Arguing for Atheism: p10-22 |

4. | Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang: p372-375 |

5. | Ferris, The Whole Shebang: p247 |

6. | ibid: p247 |

Back to the top

[Home] [The Central Thesis] [Christianity] [The Bible] [Jesus] [Paul] [God] [History] [Pascal's Wager] [Bibliography] [Links]

For comments and queries, e-mail Paul Tobin