11 Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument

October 20, 2016/1 Comment//by Guest

By Randy Everist
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one of the most popular cosmological arguments around today.
The argument is fairly straightforward and enjoys intuitive support. It goes like this: Whatever begins
to exist had a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe had a cause. The argument has
several common objections, and eleven of them are listed here, along with some of my comments. I
believe each objection can be satisfactorily answered so that one is justified in accepting the KCA.
1. Something cannot come from nothing is disproved by quantum mechanics.
Answer: This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the claim. The claim of the first premise is
whatever begins to exist had a cause. Its often demonstrated by listing the causal principle
something cannot come from nothing, or ex nihilo, nihilo fit. Quantum mechanics does not in fact
posit something coming from nothing, but rather things coming from the quantum vacuumwhich is
not nothing.
2. Truth cannot be discovered wholly from reason.
Answer: Its true that one needs some level of empiricism in order to judge many things. However,
one absolutely needs reason to judge all things. I just dont see how this is an objection against
arguments, for it must use reasoning (of some metaphysically-ultimate sort, even if its a brute fact) in
order to tell us reason doesnt tell us the whole story. Well, how will we know if the reasoning behind
this claim is telling us the whole story? The answer: because this is the kind of claim that can be
reasoned out. The KCA is just such an argument, by its very nature.
3. Some truths are counterintuitive, and therefore intuition cannot be a guide to truth.
Answer: This is a classic non-sequitur, on par with some people have incorrect thoughts, therefore
thoughts cannot be a reliable guide for truth. The point is this: why should I doubt my intuition
because someone else got theirs wrong? Indeed, why should I doubt my own intuitions even if I have been
wrong in the past? I mean, if I am insane or intuiting on things I have frequently been incorrect on, or
if there are necessary or empirical truths that overcome my intuition, or even if I have a competing
intuition that I hold stronger than the original, then fine: I should abandon it. But otherwise, rational
intuition is at the very core of reasoning. It is said that by rational intuition, we mean the way we know
if X, then Y; X; Therefore, Y is true. Therefore, it may be argued that not only is jettisoning intuition
wholesale unjustified, but actually irrational (by definition). But wait! I can hear one protest. Just
because you intuit this doesnt mean I do. Fair enough. But since I do, I am free to accept the
ramifications, unless one of the conditions for jettisoning an intuition apply. In fact, we ought to accept
our intuitions in the absence of these undercutters or defeaters, unless there is some reason to suspect
our cognitive function is impaired.
4. Since science is not itself a metaphysical enterprise, the arguer cannot apply science to a
metaphysical argument.
Answer: That science is not a metaphysical enterprise is, I think, absolutely correct. However, it does
not therefore follow that science cannot be employed in a metaphysical claim. This is somewhat akin to
claiming philosophy and science dont mix, which is surely impossible (how can anyone come to a
scientific claim or know anything without applying reasoning to what has been observed?). The KCA
1

does not have science itself do the metaphysical work; rather, it simply uses the best and most current
science to show that the universe most likely had a finite beginning and does not avoid it. Its then the
philosophy that takes over given this.
5. The first cause is logically incoherent because it existed before time.
Answer: First, it should be noted that this is not an objection to either premise, and thus one could
claim this and still believe the universe had a cause. Second, the foremost proponent of the KCA,
William Lane Craig, points out that the First Cause need not be in existence before time, as there is a first
momentthe incoherence runs both ways. So what we have is a timeless, unchanging (because it is
timeless) First Cause whose first act is bringing the world into existence. If the objector wants to insist
this is impossible because the First Cause existed before time, he must remember that positing a
moment before time began is incoherent, so his objection cannot get off the ground. The first moment
is itself identical with the first act of bringing the universe into existence.
6. If some metaphysical truth is not well-established, one is unjustified in saying it is true.
Answer: Its difficult to know what is meant by well-established, but it seems to mean something like
gained wide acceptance among philosophers. But thats a fairly poor way of evaluating an argument: a
poll! Sure, philosophers are more likely than your average person to be able to evaluate the argument
properly, but lets not pretend this is the only way to discover truth. Moreover, this is an impossible
epistemology. If no one is justified in believing some metaphysical claim to be true unless a majority of
philosophers accept it, then either no such majority will exist (because the vast majority will stick with
this claim) or if such a majority exists it will be a tipsy coachman kind of group (where they are right
for the wrong reasons). Surely this is a poor epistemology.
7. There could be other deities besides the Christian God.
Answer: Again, it must be noted that this is not an objection to either premise and hence not the
conclusion. It is an objection to the application of the conclusion. However, it must be noted that the
KCA is an argument for natural theology, not revealed theology (cf. Charles Taliaferro, The Blackwell
Companion to Natural Theology, ch. 1). It is not the domain of natural theology to discuss, explicitly, the
Christian God. Of course, we Christians happen to believe this being is identical to the Christian God
ontologically. However, lets take a look at some of the properties: timeless, spaceless, changeless
(logically prior to the Big Bang), immensely powerful, and the creator of the universe. Hmm, sounds far
more like the God of Christian theology and the Bible than any of the other alternatives, doesnt it?
8. There are non-theistic explanations that remain live possibilities.
Answer: This objection attempts to state that although the universe had a beginning, some non-theistic
explanation is just as possible (or even probable) as God. The multiverse, aliens, whatever. However,
most of these examples (such as a multiverse) can really best be described as objections to the second
premise, not the application of the conclusion. The multiverse, for instance, really doesnt solve the
problem, but merely places it back one step. One may reply the multiverse could be identical with
Lewis plurality of worlds, so that every logically-possible world actually exists, and it was impossible
that any such possible world fail to exist. However, this is extremely ad hoc, and there is literally no
reason to believe that if there is a multiverse, it is as complete as Lewis claimed (in fact, theres decent
reason to believe such a state of affairs is impossible if identity across worlds holds).
9. Popular-level science teaches the universe had a beginning, but someone says the real science
shows it doesnt.

Answer: This is a bit of an odd claim. We arent given any argument as to why its really the case that a
potentially-successful model for the beginning of the universe shows no finite beginning. Were simply
to take someones word for it, when we actually have physicists and scientists admitting these theories
dont work.
10. The KCA relies entirely on current science, and science can change.
Answer: Its very true that science is changing, and any claim should be held tentatively (even gravity
seems dubious though, right?). However, two points remain. First, simply because some claim remains
open to change does not mean that claim cannot be accepted as true. It seems bizarre to say that
because some claim is in the purview of science, one should not claim it as true. Of course we can
claim it is true! Second, the KCA does not rely entirely on science. In fact, the second premise (the
universe began to exist) can be defended solely on rational argumentation. One may think these
arguments fail, but to claim the KCA rests almost wholly on the science demonstrates a lack of
familiarity with the basic defenses of the KCAs premises.
11. There is some problem of infinite regress of a first cause.
Answer: Presumably, this is the Who created God? problem (I cant for the life of me think of any
other problem). I dont see why this is a problem, given the formulation of the argument. Whatever
begins to exist had a cause. God did not begin to exist. Ad hoc! one might cry. But they would be
mistaken. There is a very good reason for stating this. The application of the conclusion demands that
the First Cause precede, logically, all else. The First Causes act of bringing the universe into existence is
the first moment. Hence, if the First Cause was not really the first cause after all, then the first moment
of time would already have existed. But it did not exist. Hence, the First Cause was the first.
Each objection has been dealt with by providing an answer. This means that each Christian, and each
person, is rationally justified in accepting the KCA. If that is true, then it seems that the KCAs truth
implies Godnot just any God, but the God of the Bible!
http://crossexamined.org/11-objections-kalam-cosmological-argument/