The Kalam Cosmological Argument Exposed

Deathraider

What is the Kalam Cosmological Argument?

The argument goes as follow:

1. Everything that began to exist must have a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. The universe must have a cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Exposed

So what's the issue?

Absolutely nothing....

😐...

🤣 Did I get you there? Admit it, I got you.

But the flaws about this argument is that the first premise is flawed. The reason why is because things in physics don't begin to exist, per se. The conservation of mass means things form from other things already around.

Not to mention, it assumes that things that began must have a cause. In quantum mechanics, it has not been shown there is a cause to radioactive decay. Now some people, like William Craig, may bring up that there is a cause, just a Non predetermined, probabilistic one. If that was the case, than the argument itself just falls apart. Why can't our universe have that kind of cause?

Furthermore, we don't know if the universe had a beginning. Something might've existed before that. We do not know what happened before 10^-43 seconds. Assuming it's a god is flawed because it can be many other possibilities such as the universe may have existed in a steady state beforehand, the universe may be a result of the death of another universe, or something else. We don't know. The thing we do know is if there was something before the Big Bang, it wouldn't affect the things that came after.

I'll see you next time!

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Exposed
16 Opinion