The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is one of the most widely discussed arguments for the existence of God. It is simple in its structure yet profound in its implications, asserting that the universe has a cause for its existence. However, many atheists misunderstand or misrepresent the KCA, leading to flawed critiques and missed opportunities for meaningful dialogue. This blog explores 15 things some atheists get wrong about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, offering clarifications and scholarly insights.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Simplified)
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
1. Misrepresenting the Premise: ‘Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause’
Some atheists claim that the first premise assumes what it sets out to prove, labeling it circular reasoning. However, this premise is grounded in empirical observation and philosophical reasoning: things that begin to exist (e.g., a chair, a star) do so because of causes.
William Lane Craig clarifies: “This premise is based on the metaphysical principle that being cannot come from non-being. It’s not assumed but observed universally.”¹
¹ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
2. Dismissing the Premise with Quantum Mechanics
Critics argue that quantum mechanics shows things can come into existence uncaused, citing phenomena like virtual particles. However, virtual particles arise from quantum fields, which are themselves causes. Nothing in quantum mechanics suggests true causeless creation.
John Lennox notes: “Quantum mechanics does not deny causality; it operates within a framework of pre-existing conditions, laws, and structures.”²
² John Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2009).
3. Ignoring the Evidence for a Beginning
Some atheists reject the claim that the universe began to exist, suggesting it could be eternal. However, evidence from cosmology, such as the Big Bang and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, strongly supports the universe having a finite past.
Alexander Vilenkin states: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”³
³ Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006).
4. Misunderstanding Infinity in Premise Two
Critics argue that an infinite past is possible, dismissing the need for a beginning. However, an actual infinite series of past events leads to logical contradictions, such as Hilbert’s Hotel, which demonstrates the absurdities of actual infinities in reality.
David Hilbert explains: “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.”⁴
⁴ David Hilbert, On the Infinite (1925).
5. Confusing ‘Beginning to Exist’ with ‘Coming from Nothing’
Some atheists caricature the KCA as claiming the universe popped into existence from nothing. However, the argument explicitly denies this possibility, asserting instead that the universe had a cause outside itself.
Edward Feser writes: “The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not claim that the universe came from nothing; it argues that the universe requires a cause.”⁵
⁵ Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017).
6. Conflating the Cause with a Temporal Event
Critics often argue that causality requires time, making it impossible for the universe’s cause to exist “before” time began. However, the KCA posits a cause that exists timelessly and spacelessly prior to the universe’s existence.
William Lane Craig explains: “The cause of the universe must transcend time and space, existing timelessly and changelessly until it brings the universe into being.”⁶
⁶ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
7. Ignoring the Implications of a Personal Cause
Some atheists argue that the cause of the universe could be impersonal, such as a set of physical laws. However, an impersonal cause cannot account for the universe’s beginning at a specific moment. A personal cause—capable of deliberate action—best explains the universe’s origin.
Richard Swinburne states: “Only a personal agent can choose to bring about a universe with temporal beginnings.”⁷
⁷ Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004).
8. Assuming the Argument Claims ‘Everything Has a Cause’
Critics misrepresent the KCA by claiming it states, “Everything has a cause,” leading to the question, “What caused God?” However, the argument distinguishes between contingent beings that begin to exist and necessary beings that do not.
Thomas Aquinas argues: “A necessary being does not require a cause; it exists by its very nature.”⁸
⁸ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.2.3.
9. Misapplying Occam’s Razor
Some atheists dismiss the Kalam Cosmological Argument by invoking Occam’s Razor, claiming that positing God as the cause of the universe is unnecessarily complex. However, God as a necessary being provides a simpler and more coherent explanation than speculative alternatives like the multiverse.
Richard Swinburne explains: “Occam’s Razor favors the simplest explanation that adequately accounts for the data. A necessary, uncaused being is simpler than an infinite regress or multiple universes.”⁹
⁹ Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
10. Claiming the Universe Could Be Self-Caused
Some atheists argue that the universe could have caused itself. However, this suggestion is logically incoherent, as something cannot exist prior to itself to bring itself into existence.
William Lane Craig notes: “Self-causation is a contradiction. For something to cause itself, it would need to exist before it existed, which is logically impossible.”¹⁰
¹⁰ William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2010).
11. Treating the Big Bang as a Natural Event Without a Cause
Critics often argue that the Big Bang was simply a natural event and requires no further explanation. However, the Big Bang describes the development of the universe after it began, not the cause of its beginning.
Alexander Vilenkin states: “The Big Bang does not eliminate the need for a cause; it confirms that the universe had a beginning, which requires an explanation.”¹¹
¹¹ Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006).
12. Proposing the Multiverse as a Cause
Some atheists invoke the multiverse as an alternative explanation for the universe’s origin. However, the multiverse itself would still require a cause, as it would merely extend the set of contingent realities rather than eliminate the need for an ultimate cause.
Stephen Meyer writes: “The multiverse hypothesis multiplies contingencies without providing a necessary explanation. It pushes the question of origins further back without resolving it.”¹²
¹² Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (New York: HarperOne, 2021).
13. Equating the Argument with ‘God of the Gaps’
Some atheists dismiss the Kalam Cosmological Argument as a “God of the gaps” fallacy, claiming it invokes God to explain gaps in scientific knowledge. However, the argument is a deductive philosophical reasoning, not an appeal to ignorance.
Edward Feser explains: “The Kalam argument is not about plugging gaps in knowledge; it is a metaphysical argument grounded in the nature of causality and existence.”¹³
¹³ Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017).
14. Claiming Causality Only Applies Within the Universe
Some critics argue that causality is a concept that applies only within the universe, not to the universe itself. However, this objection conflates empirical causality with the metaphysical principle that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Robert Koons writes: “Causality is not merely a scientific principle; it is a metaphysical truth that applies to all things that begin to exist.”¹⁴
¹⁴ Robert Koons, The Waning of Materialism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
15. Ignoring the Philosophical Implications of the Cause
Critics often ignore the attributes of the cause implied by the Kalam argument. The cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful—characteristics consistent with the concept of God.
William Lane Craig states: “The Kalam argument does not merely demonstrate the existence of a cause; it points to a cause with characteristics uniquely consistent with the God of classical theism.”¹⁵
¹⁵ William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
Addressing the Collective Scholarship and Science of the Kalam
Critics of the Kalam Cosmological Argument often dismiss it by targeting isolated points or attempting to refute a single scholar’s reasoning. However, the Kalam does not rest on one individual’s perspective or evidence; it is a cumulative case built on extensive philosophical and scientific scholarship. Avoiding engagement with this broader body of work risks committing the fallacy of selective engagement (cherry-picking).
A Scholarly and Scientific Syllogism
- The Kalam Cosmological Argument is supported by a diverse body of scholarship and scientific findings, including the works of William Lane Craig, Alexander Vilenkin, David Hilbert, and others.
- To refute the Kalam, critics must engage with the collective evidence and reasoning presented by these experts—not just dismiss isolated points or counter specific premises.
- If critics cannot adequately refute the combined philosophical and scientific case, the Kalam remains a compelling argument for the universe’s cause.
William Lane Craig explains: “The Kalam argument rests on both philosophical reasoning and empirical support, including findings from cosmology and mathematics that confirm the universe’s beginning.”¹⁶
Alexander Vilenkin states: “The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem shows that any universe which has been expanding cannot be eternal in the past. It had to have a beginning.”¹⁷
Why Critics Must Address the Collective Case
To meaningfully challenge the Kalam Cosmological Argument, critics must engage with the breadth of evidence supporting it, including:
- Scientific Evidence for the Universe’s Beginning:
- Cosmological discoveries like the Big Bang, the second law of thermodynamics, and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem strongly suggest the universe had a finite past.
- These findings must be addressed comprehensively, not dismissed or oversimplified.
- Philosophical Evidence for Causality:
- Arguments from metaphysics, such as the impossibility of an actual infinite regress of causes (e.g., Hilbert’s Hotel), bolster the Kalam’s second premise.
- Philosophers like David Hilbert and William Lane Craig have demonstrated why an infinite past is incoherent in the real world.
- Implications of the Cause:
- The cause of the universe, as inferred from the Kalam, must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful—attributes consistent with a theistic interpretation.
Challenge to Critics: Avoiding Cherry-Picking
Critics cannot dismiss the Kalam by refuting a single aspect, such as Hilbert’s mathematical insights or Craig’s defense of the second premise. Nor can they rely solely on speculative hypotheses like a quantum vacuum or a cyclical universe. They must:
- Refute the philosophical reasoning underpinning the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes.
- Address the cumulative scientific evidence for a finite universe.
- Propose an alternative explanation with equal or greater explanatory power.
David Hilbert states: “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought.”¹⁸
Alexander Pruss adds: “To dismiss the Kalam’s reasoning without engaging with the evidence is to avoid the fundamental question of why anything exists at all.”¹⁹
A Final Challenge
Could it be that critics misunderstand or avoid the Kalam because they fail to address its cumulative weight of evidence? By engaging with the philosophical, mathematical, and scientific foundations of the argument, both skeptics and believers can deepen their understanding of the universe’s origins and its ultimate cause.
Tom's Theology Blog 
Leave a comment