The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 2: Philosophical

Did the universe have a beginning? Or has it existed from eternity past?
If it DID have a beginning, this raises a question: Did the universe have a Creator?

In PART 1 we explored this question scientifically. Now, let’s look at it philosophically.

Aristotle believed the universe was eternal in the past.

But Al-Ghazali disagreed. He pointed out that if the universe did NOT have a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite.

But that’s a problem because the existence of an actually infinite number of past events leads to absurdity! It’s metaphysically impossible.

Why?

_______________________________________

Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig and aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today.

_______________________________________

We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:

[AlAmin-ctcn]

Can we appreciate al ghazali for his wisdom

[terryhollifield]

This philosophical version has always been the most powerful to my thinking (although admittedly, what convices one individual person is subjective). When I was not a Christian and was following a type of "New Spirituality" the reality of time and the fact of the present moment haunted me and was used by God to help me see the logical need for God's existence. Thank you for these excellent resources as always.

[billbolthouse]

Nice video. Fortunately, I have an infinite number of points built up in the Hilbert Hotel Rewards Program, in case an infinite number of guests show up, I still get an upgrade.

[les]

Makes sense. Actual infinities would lead to contradictions. For example, an infinitely dense planet would be condensed into a sphere with a radius zero, i.e. it would not exist.

[cradle]

May Allah bless Al Ghazali for writing the cosmological argument

[TallGabe]

Very helpful. I have struggled to explain the Hilbert hotel and this makes it’s much easier.

[scottanderson]

I'm not afraid to admit that I wept when I viewed this video. Such an eloquent explanation. This also helps me defend my faith against an increasing amount of people who want to tear it down.

[mattfig]

0:08 So glad she said, "raises the question" instead of "begs the question."

[iyadal-najjar]

الله يرحم مولانا الحجة الغزالي
Thanks for giving us this great video. It gives better ideas to explain things.

[amadubah]

I really love these animated videos. PLEASE KEEP IT UP!

[wanderingsoul]

Al ghazali is a gem in Islamic philosophy

[DougGroothuis]

Excellent. I defend this argument in Christian Apologetics. See also J.P. Moreland's treatment in Scaling the Secular City.
I am going to use this in my apologetic class.

[mostafaomar]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

An argument that Uses the most fundamental laws of
contemporary physics and engineering. To prove. The presence. Of God. Allah.
1-Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existe.
2-The universe began to exist.( The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.)+(the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). In a closed system the available energy will become less and less until
until finally you have no available energy at all (you have reached a state of entropy).simply The universe is running out of energy.which also points us to a universe that has a definite
beginning.
3-therefore, the universe has a cause.

In Holy Quran the Word of God,
THE ‘BIG BANG’ VERSE
اَوَ لَمۡ یَرَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ کَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنٰہُمَا ؕ وَ جَعَلۡنَا مِنَ الۡمَآءِ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ حَیٍّ ؕ اَفَلَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ

Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out (fafataqnahuma)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:31 Al-Anbiya)

The universe is running out of energy VERSE

﴿٨﴾ أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۗ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّهِمْ لَكَافِرُونَ
8. Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth, and what is between them, except in truth, and for a specific duration. But most people, regarding meeting their Lord, are in denial. ( The Romans

[zachio]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It originated in medieval Islamic theology and was developed by Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali and al-Farabi. The argument goes as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The cause is then argued to be a necessary, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless being, which is identified as God. The argument is based on the idea that the universe had a finite beginning and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being, since it cannot be caused by something that came into existence after it.

There are several criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including the following:

The first premise - that everything that begins to exist has a cause - has been challenged by some philosophers and scientists. They argue that the cause-and-effect relationship only applies to things within the universe, and that it is not necessarily applicable to the universe as a whole.

The second premise - that the universe began to exist - is based on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology, which is still a matter of scientific debate and not a proven fact. Some philosophers and scientists argue that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply a beginning of the universe, and that alternative models, such as the cyclic model or the emergent model, are possible.

The conclusion that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being is not logically necessary. There could be other explanations for the cause of the universe, such as a natural cause or a multiverse.

The identification of the cause of the universe as God is not logically necessary. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not prove the existence of a personal deity with specific attributes, but only the existence of a necessary, uncaused being.

In conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has faced numerous criticisms and objections, and its validity as a proof for the existence of God is still the subject of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate.

[danr.]

Animated videos sure do help guys like me. Lord knows that's the only way I can understand things.

[zorkboy]

Great video! To me, Ghazali's second argument is easier to understand and explain to people, so I generally go with that one

[ShanerMcGrainer]

I enjoy the simplicity & depth of Dr.Craig's work.

[Rotisiv]

Al-Ghazali was Muslim, I hope you now view Islam a bit more differently that what you used to due to your corrupt media. There’s no rift that separates between us Jews, Christians and Muslims we all worship the same unchanging, eternal Creator who brought the Universe into being, we simply differ concerning the view of Christ.

[timsmith]

Awesome as usual! I prefer the scientific version, though. I think it appeals to modern Americans better than the philosophical version.

How about a video on how we got the Bible and why it is trustworthy?

[farhanwyne]

This indeed is a very strong argument for the presence/existence of a Divine Being.