This argument is one of the first arguments for God’s existence. It was constructed by Muslim Theologians to eliminate an eternal Universe. “The Universe was, is and always will be”- Carl Sagan. It this statement true? If this argument is successful in its premises than the conclusion logically follows to be true. It’s a syllogism that is a deductive argument, so it’s impossible for the conclusion to be false. It has 2 premises and a conclusion to the argument.
Premise #1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise #2: The Universe began to exist.
Premise #3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
Premise one you would think would be uncontroversial. Many challenge this premise in many forms. I will deal with objections in part 2 of this argument. Now this asserts that anything that comes into being like a new person is born would have a cause. The cause would be the person’s parent because we do not being born without parents. A new building made would be caused by engineer’s, construction workers, and so on. Since things that come to be have a cause, it’s more plausibly true than false that premise 1 is true.
Premise two seems to be the less controversial of the two premises which is strange. The beginning of the universe is scientific fact based on the based the scientific theory which is the Big Bang Theory. “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang”-Stephen Hawking. “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is now no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning”- Alexander Vilenkin. “…astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world…. the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” (Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 14.) “The best data we have (concerning the Big Bang) are exactly what I would have predicted had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole”- Arno Penzias. “Certainly there was something that set it all off.... I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”- Robert Wilson. “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing”- George Smoot. These men are all respected men in their fields of physics and are not “creationist”. I mean people who think the universe was created 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now what’s the actually evidence for the beginning of the universe.
The second law of thermodynamics is the first piece of evidence which states” that the total entropy can only increase over time for an isolated system, meaning a system which neither energy nor matter can enter or leave”. Meaning if the universe were eternal we would always have been in the universe’s heat death. All energy would be used and unusable. We still have usable energy which I would assume so since I’m still alive and using energy. The universe is a closed system, so there’s nowhere for our energy to go. The second piece of evidence is the expansion of the universe discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929. This shows that the universe is finite in the past and is still getting bigger like a balloon. If it were to reverse than time itself would change and the universe would collapse on itself and never expand again. We can trace the points between space, time, and matter which eventually reach zero showing creation out of nothing. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem help shows that any universe expanding is finite in the past. The third piece of scientific evidence is the radiation afterglow which shows the remains of the massive expansion of Big Bang. This helps showing that matter, time, and space coming into being out of nothing and shows that the universe was created 13.7-14.5 billion years. This was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965. This helps showing the first step of the universes formation as we have it today. The fourth piece of scientific evidence for the Big Bang are the great galaxies seeds. These show ripple effects in temperature which was predicated by the radiation afterglow help confirming the truth of Big Bang Cosmology. These were also necessary for galaxies to form hence the name great galaxy seeds. The fifth piece of scientific evidence would be Einstein theory of Generally relativity. It shows that space, time and matter are co-relative and are contingent upon each other for their existence. Also, shows that light is a constant even in a vacuum which helps show the age of stars and to help show the finite age of the past. These are five pieces of scientific evidences for the beginning of the universe.
There are two more pieces of evidences for the case of the beginning of the Universe. They are both philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe. Not as strong as the scientific, but still good reinforces. The first one is if the universe were eternal there would not be a past or present. We are in the present now and change is still happening like universe expanding, changing of planets, second law of thermodynamics, and so on. A past eternal universe is contradictory because eternal is without past, present, or future. Eternal is rather timeless or changeless. The second philosophical argument is that we cannot have an infinite number of events in the real world. Take Herbert’s Hotel which shows the ridiculousness of an actually infinite number of events. It’s a hotel that has an infinite number of rooms, but also has infinite number of people in these rooms. Try and reconcile this, but wait it gets even more obscured. An infinite number of people want to check, so the clerk says don’t worry we have infinite amount of rooms. The clerk moves guess 1 in room 1 to room 2 and so. He keeps moving one guess to the next room and continues these process because there’s an infinite amount of rooms. The hotel should put a sign on front door saying all rooms are vacant, but we have plenty of rooms. With an actually infinite number of events we get contradictions and it’s because how well we understand infinity from a mathematical perspective. These are the two main philosophical arguments Theologians have used before the scientific evidence.
Since both of these premises are more plausible than true we have a sound argument and also the argument is also valid because given that the premises truth it’s impossible for the conclusion to be false. The conclusion logically follows from the truth of the premises and the conclusion is that the universe has a cause. Now the next question is: What is this cause? Well this cause would have to transcend space, time, and matter. Transcends means to be beyond and not contingent upon space, time, and matter. More as space, time, and matter being contingent upon the cause which would have to be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. It would have to be an intelligent cause because it sets the right parameters for the fine-tuning of the universe for the initial conditions (expansion rate, etc.) Also for the temporal effect of the universe would have to be cause from a personal agent. For the universe with a temporal effect requires a persona agent to choose to bring a state of affairs into existence. The cause for the universe would have to be omnipotent to create the Universe. With all these qualities in place for the cause we have theistic God as a cause. This is part 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and Part 2 will deal with objections to this argument.
Please share this article and leave a comment.
Please spread the news of this apologetics website.
Please follow me on Instagram @JMDapologetics101.