In the following, I will show why the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails to establish its conclusion that God exists.

First, we must understand the argument:

(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

(2) The universe began to exist.

(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

I will not touch upon any attempted refutation of (1) on the basis of virtual particles as the results are still inconclusive. Though, it is perhaps interesting to note that (1) is presented as an a priori category of the human mind. That is to say that causality seems to be a precondition of all human thought, as Kant touched upon.

Insofar as Craig’s argument attempts to conclude that the cause of the Universe was a single personal being, that is simply a non-sequitur. It remains a possibility that several entities took part in the creation.

Also, Craig asserts that the Universe was brought into existence by something that is beyond, and greater than it. I fail to see why the creator(s) of the Universe must be beyond, or greater than it. It seems that Craig is proposing the following:

A creator is always greater than its creation.

Do we have good reason to suppose this? I think not. Parents give birth to children who turn out to be much greater than they were, for example. Craig doesn’t seem to provide justification that the relationship between Creator(s) and Universe is different than that of parent and child.

It also seems that the Kalam rests on this idea that the Universe was created from nothing (ex nihilo) but this does not seem to be justified within the Kalam either. An understanding of the Kalam leads to an understanding that an assertion is being made that the Universe is not eternal, and was rather created. Though where is the exclusion that the Universe was not created out of some other thing. As Michael Martin proposes:

“One possibility is that the creator or creators of the Universe created it out of something that existed in some timeless realm. Another is that the material existed from eternity and that the creator or creators took this and formed the universe at a particular moment and, with it, causality and change.”

There simply cannot be any idea of causality or causal sequences prior to the creation of the Universe.

Craig further suggests that the cause of the Universe is a personal agent(s). But as Michael Martin explains, to do so is to appeal to the principle of determination. The principle reads:

If there are two equally possible results and one occurs, the result must be explained in terms of the choice of a personal agent

Why should we suppose this to be true? In our world and even in science, what would happen if for every situation in which there were two possible set of affairs and one arose, we appealed to a personal agent. What would become of coin flips? Rather than saying that the reason as to why it dropped on one side as opposed to the other was due to a personal agent, rather than the natural forces operating on the coin. We can safely reject this principle, and by doing so, we can safely reject that if the Universe was created it must have been at the hands of a personal being. Perhaps there are non-personal causes which are timeless themselves, but create events in time.

We should also be skeptical when Craig states that the Universe had a beginning in time. When Craig seeks to establish this point he presents this idea that actual infinities are impossible. In order to simplify, I will give a (very) brief explanation of Potential Infinity vs. Actual Infinity.

Potential infinity refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end. For instance, the sequence of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 …

This sequence gets higher and higher but never ends, it will never actually reach infinity. We just use the term infinity to denote the direction in which the set of numbers if moving towards. As Eric Schechter says, “chasing this kind of infinity is like chasing a rainbow or trying to sail to the edge of the world — you may think you see it in the distance, but when you get to where you thought it was, you see it is still further away.

Actual infinity, (think, completed infinity) is an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done. For instance, the completed set of numbers {1, 2, 3, 4…}

By having a completed set, we are identifying the set as one object. A set which has infinitely many members. This does not mean a large amount of finite members, this literally means the set already has “infinitely” many members. It is completed, whereas the potential infinity is working towards completion but will never arrive there.

Perhaps a clearer explanation is that which Aristotle suggests. A potential infinity is one that you may keep adding to, an actual infinity is one that you may not because it is completed. All of the members of the actual infinite set exist together simultaneously as a final totality.

Craig goes on to admit that actual infinities are perfectly consistent in mathematics, but says they are logically impossible to have in the real world. He fails to show that there is any logical inconsistency to be had by having an actual infinite exist in the real world.

He does, however, give the following example:

“Suppose further that each book in the library has a number printed on its spine so as to create a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers. Because the collection is an actual infinity, this means that every possible natural number is printed on some book. Therefore, it would be impossible to add another book to this library. For what would be the number of the new book? Clearly there is no number to assign to it…. Therefore, there would be no number for the new book. But this is absurd, since entities that exist in reality can be numbered”

Firstly, it is important to note that though Craig says this is absurd, it surely is not illogical. As Wainwright tells us, the argument is unsound, because books can be added and numbered by simply renumbering the books already in the library. The new books would then be given the numbers of old books (books that have already been assigned numbers) and the old books would be assigned new numbers.

Craig’s argument that one cannot construct an actual infinity by successive addition is reconstructed by Martin as:

(1) For any point, it is impossible to begin at that point and construct an actual infinity by successive addition.

(2) In order to construct an actual infinity by successive addition, it is necessary to begin at some point.

(3) Therefore, an actual infinity cannot be constructed by succesive addition.

First off, (2) begs the question. There is an alternative that an actual infinity can be constructed by successive addition, IF the successive addition is without a beginning. Craig assumes that an actual infinity cannot be constructed this way, but that is precisely what is being questioned! Hence, Craig begs the question.

At this point, there would usually arise an appeal to scientific evidence. Craig does so by stating that the evidence supports the hypothesis “the Universe had an absolute beginning”. Though, as Milton Munitz shows, that would preclude any scientific investigation of this beginning:

“Science is grounded in the use of the Principle of Sufficient Reason and therefore, always leaves open the possibility of finding the explanation of any event. To say there is some unique event marking the beginning of the universe for which no [scientific] explanation can be given, is to say something contrary to the method of science. It is for this reason … that any conception of the beginning of the universe, when defended under the aegis of some supposedly scientific cosmology, is an indefensible notion.”

Simply because there is no explanation now, does not mean there will not be one in the future. Munitz further states:

“Even if, there is reason to prefer a model whose account of the past history of the universe includes a reference to an event called in that theory ‘the origin of the universe,’ it does not exclude the possibility of finding some more refined theory, in which inference can be made to events even earlier than the once identified as “the beginning” in the theory of the coarser grain. The search for a more refined theory that would explain the event considered ‘the beginning of the universe’ (in the cruder theory) would be part of the normal interest of science.”

Lastly, as Martin states:

“…even if the universe has beginning in time, in the light of recently proposed cosmological theories this beginning may be uncaused. Despite Craig’s claim that theories postulating the Universe ‘could pop into existence uncaused’ are incapable of ‘sincere affirmation,’ such similar theories are in fact being taken seriously by scientists”

It is evident that the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as presented by William Lane Craig, fails to establish its conclusion.