Debunking the Kalam cosmological argument

14 min readSep 22, 2023

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is traditionally formulated as follows:

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

Proponents often conclude that this cause is God, and further claim:

4. God did not begin to exist.
5. Therefore, God is uncaused.

Does the universe have “a cause”?

The premise that “the universe has a cause” is not empirically proven. While causality is a principle that operates within the universe, it is not necessarily applicable to the universe as a whole or to the concept of existence itself. The idea that the universe requires a cause assumes that the rules governing causality within the universe apply to the universe’s origin, which remains a philosophical assumption rather than an established fact.

When we discuss the concept of a cause or source, we are referring to an agent or factor that initiates or brings about a particular effect or outcome. Typically, a cause precedes its effect and is separate from the effect itself. However, when considering the cause or source of existence, this standard notion encounters a significant problem.

Existence, by definition, includes everything that is real and has being. It encompasses all entities, phenomena, and reality itself. If we propose that existence has a cause or source, we must recognize that this cause or source cannot be external to existence. If it were, it would imply the existence of something beyond existence, which is a logical contradiction. There is no “outside” of existence, as existence encompasses all that is.

Therefore, if existence had a cause or source, that cause or source must necessarily be a part of existence. It would be an intrinsic component within the broader framework of existence itself. This leads us to conclude that existence does not have an external cause or source; rather, it is self-contained.

From this understanding, we arrive at the proposition that existence itself must be uncaused and uncreated. Since any potential cause or source of existence would have to exist within existence, existence does not require an external cause or source to bring it into being. It is an inherent and eternal aspect of reality, standing as a self-sustaining entity independent of any external influences. It is not contingent upon anything external to grant it life or bring it into being. Instead, existence inherently and eternally exists, without the need for a preceding cause or source. This self-contained nature underscores the fundamental reality that existence, as the ultimate reality, requires no external justification or origin.

Some cosmological models, such as those in quantum physics, suggest that the universe could emerge from a quantum vacuum or a state where classical notions of causality do not apply. These models challenge the assumption that the universe must have a cause.

A god without a cause…?

The claim that “God did not begin to exist and is therefore uncaused” presupposes the existence of God without providing evidence for such existence. The argument’s leap from the existence of a cause to the affirmation of a specific deity, uncaused and eternal, is unsupported by empirical evidence and philosophical rigor and moves from the hypothetical to the definitive without justification. Simply asserting that God did not begin to exist does not provide proof of God’s existence, but it illustrates a common logical fallacy — begging the question — where the conclusion (the existence of an eternal God) is assumed within the premises. This leap, often justified by faith rather than reason, underscores the tension between religious belief and logical inquiry. While faith-based reasoning may provide comfort and cohesion within religious communities, it does not meet the standards of evidence and logical consistency demanded by philosophical or scientific inquiry.

However, if we consider the possibility that God does not exist, then the statement “God did not begin to exist” simply means that God is uncaused because non-existent entities cannot begin to exist or have causes. In other words, if God does not exist, the argument that God is uncaused becomes trivial, as non-existent entities do not require causes.

The leap from “God is uncaused” to “God has always existed” is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It assumes what it seeks to prove, namely, the existence of an eternal God. This assumption is not based on any empirical or logical necessity but rather on a desire to fit the conclusion into a pre-existing religious framework. Believing that “God has always existed” without evidence is arbitrary and therefore irrational. It relies on faith rather than reason, which is fine in a religious context but fails to satisfy the logical rigor required in philosophical or scientific discourse.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument makes several assumptions that are not empirically or logically substantiated. The claim that the universe must have a cause is not conclusively proven, and more importantly, the existence of God, which is central to the argument, is not evidenced. Without proof of God’s existence, the claim that God did not begin to exist becomes meaningless. It could just as easily be interpreted as an admission of non-existence rather than evidence of eternal existence. The conclusion that God has always existed is thus arbitrary and rests on an irrational leap of faith rather than on logical deduction or empirical support.

Why might religious leaders perpetuate this obvious, irrational argument?

1. Authority and Control: Religious leaders often maintain that their god is an uncaused cause, a belief that can significantly reinforce their authority. By asserting this notion, they position themselves as the sole interpreters of divine will, and as essential intermediaries between their followers and the transcendent. This claim of exclusivity allows them to consolidate control over their congregations.

Historically, this dynamic can be observed in various religious traditions where leaders used similar arguments to justify their authority and suppress dissent. For example, during the Medieval period, the Catholic Church wielded immense power by asserting divine authority, often silencing scientific inquiry that contradicted its teachings, such as the geocentric model of the universe. Similarly, modern-day religious leaders in various contexts have used the notion of divine exemption from causality to resist challenges to their authority, thereby preserving their influence over their followers.

2. Faith and Devotion: Believers are often encouraged to embrace faith as a virtue, especially when faced with concepts that challenge reason. The assertion that their god is an uncaused cause is frequently presented as a matter of faith, requiring followers to accept it without demanding logical consistency. This reliance on faith rather than reason is a hallmark of religious epistemology, where belief is often based on spiritual conviction rather than empirical evidence.

This faith-based approach can foster a deeper sense of devotion among followers, as it aligns with the religious ideal of trust in the divine. However, this same reliance on faith also highlights why the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) fails to satisfy philosophical or scientific standards, which prioritize evidence and logical coherence. The KCA’s heavy dependence on faith-based reasoning makes it persuasive within religious contexts but problematic when subjected to empirical scrutiny.

3. Community and Identity: The belief in a god as an uncaused cause can serve as a powerful unifying element within a religious community. It not only reinforces a shared worldview but also sets the community apart from others who do not share the same belief. This differentiation strengthens the group’s identity and fosters a sense of belonging among its members.

The cohesion generated by this shared belief can ensure the community’s continued existence, as it creates a collective bond that transcends individual doubts. Historically, religious communities have often rallied around such core beliefs to preserve their identity, particularly in the face of external challenges or internal schisms. For instance, during the Reformation, both Protestant and Catholic leaders emphasized doctrinal differences to solidify their respective communities’ identities, using theological arguments to maintain cohesion and resist fragmentation.

4. Resistance to Skepticism: Encouraging followers to accept the notion that their god is exempt from causality also serves as a bulwark against skepticism or critical questioning. By framing this belief as a divine mystery, religious leaders can discourage doubt and maintain the faith of their followers.

This tactic is not new; throughout history, many religious institutions have positioned certain doctrines as beyond human understanding to protect them from scrutiny. For example, the concept of the Trinity in Christianity has often been presented as a divine mystery, with questioning its logic sometimes discouraged or even deemed heretical. In contemporary settings, similar strategies are employed to sustain religious beliefs that might otherwise be challenged by scientific or philosophical inquiry.

By promoting irrational arguments, religious leaders can effectively maintain control, deepen devotion, and strengthen the collective identity of their communities, even when these beliefs defy logical consistency. However, these strategies come at a significant cost. They undermine intellectual rigor, sacrifice honesty, and erode logical coherence. This approach exposes the fundamental tension between faith-based reasoning, which relies on belief without evidence, and the demands of empirical and philosophical scrutiny, which prioritize critical thinking and evidence-based conclusions. Ultimately, this tension highlights the challenges inherent in reconciling deeply held religious beliefs with the standards of rational inquiry.

What are the consequences?

Voltaire’s claim, “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,” powerfully illustrates the dangerous potential of irrational beliefs when exploited by those in positions of power or authority. Religious leaders often use the assertion of divine will or supernatural authority to persuade followers to accept beliefs that defy reason or logic. This manipulation can have profound and far-reaching consequences.

When individuals are persuaded to believe in absurd or contradictory claims, they become more susceptible to accepting other beliefs or claims that also lack a logical basis. This process can be understood through the psychological mechanism of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals experience discomfort due to holding conflicting beliefs or behaviors. To reduce this discomfort, they often rationalize or justify the contradictory belief, which can lead to a deeper entrenchment in irrational thinking. Once an individual accepts an absurd belief, they may unconsciously seek to reduce the dissonance by aligning their other beliefs and actions with this irrational framework, leading to a slippery slope where critical thinking and skepticism are increasingly suspended in favor of faith and obedience.

Moreover, group identity plays a significant role in reinforcing and perpetuating irrational belief systems. When a community or group is united by shared beliefs, particularly those that are irrational or contradictory, the collective identity becomes tied to the acceptance of these beliefs. This dynamic can create an environment where questioning or rejecting the shared belief is seen as a threat to the group’s cohesion and identity. The pressure to conform to the group’s norms can lead individuals to suppress their doubts and align with the irrational beliefs, even when they conflict with logic or personal values. This phenomenon can escalate to the point where individuals are willing to commit extreme or violent actions in defense of the group’s identity, as these actions are rationalized within the context of the group’s belief system.

Belief systems that advocate extreme or violent actions find fertile ground among individuals who have already accepted irrational or contradictory beliefs. The suspension of critical thinking and the unquestioning acceptance of authority figures create an environment where individuals can be more easily radicalized. This radicalization process is often facilitated by the psychological comfort that comes from being part of a group that shares and reinforces one’s beliefs, no matter how irrational they may be. In this context, atrocities committed in the name of these beliefs are not only justified but seen as necessary to protect or advance the group’s interests.

Historical examples abound where irrational beliefs have been manipulated to justify violence and cruelty. During the Crusades, for instance, the Massacre at Ayyadieh, where King Richard I ordered the beheading of more than two thousand Muslim prisoners of war, was rationalized through religious fervor and the belief in divine mandate. Similarly, the Spanish Inquisition used the belief in heresy as a justification for torture and execution, manipulating religious doctrine to maintain power and control. In more recent history, the Bosnian massacres of innocent Muslim populations, including women and children, were carried out under the influence of absurd beliefs about racial and genetic superiority, illustrating how deeply ingrained irrational beliefs can lead to horrific acts of violence.

These examples serve as a stark reminder of the importance of critical thinking, skepticism, and the rigorous examination of beliefs. They highlight the need for individuals to question and evaluate the claims made by religious leaders and organizations, particularly when those claims appear to be irrational or contradictory. By fostering an environment where questioning is encouraged and logical consistency is valued, society can better guard against the harmful consequences of irrational beliefs and the atrocities that can follow in their wake.

Epilogue: Reflections on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Broader Implications

The examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) reveals that it hinges on assumptions that remain unproven and are subject to significant philosophical and scientific scrutiny. The argument’s reliance on causality, while intuitive within the universe, does not necessarily extend to the universe as a whole, nor does it offer definitive evidence for the existence of a deity. By examining alternative cosmological models and the philosophical implications of causality and existence, we uncover a more nuanced understanding of the universe — one that challenges the simplistic conclusions often drawn by proponents of the KCA.

The primary weakness of the KCA lies in its presumption that the universe’s beginning necessitates a cause akin to those within the universe, thereby anthropomorphizing the cosmos and imposing a linear, human-centered logic onto a domain where it may not apply.

Quantum mechanics and alternative cosmological theories, such as Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC), propose scenarios where the universe could exist in a cyclical or eternal state, free from the classical notion of a cause. These models highlight the limitations of applying human intuition to cosmological origins and invite us to consider more complex, non-linear understandings of existence.

Furthermore, the argument’s leap from the existence of a cause to the affirmation of a specific deity, uncaused and eternal, is unsupported by empirical evidence and philosophical rigor. It illustrates a common logical fallacy — begging the question — where the conclusion (the existence of an eternal God) is assumed within the premises. This leap, often justified by faith rather than reason, underscores the tension between religious belief and logical inquiry. While faith-based reasoning may provide comfort and cohesion within religious communities, it does not meet the standards of evidence and logical consistency demanded by philosophical or scientific inquiry.

The social and psychological dimensions of the KCA and similar arguments cannot be ignored. The perpetuation of such arguments by religious leaders is not merely an intellectual exercise but also a means of maintaining authority, fostering group identity, and resisting skepticism. These arguments serve to reinforce the power structures within religious institutions, often at the expense of critical thinking and intellectual honesty. The consequences of promoting irrational beliefs extend beyond the confines of religious discourse; they have the potential to foster environments where critical inquiry is suppressed, and where extreme actions can be justified under the guise of divine mandate.

In reflecting on the KCA, we must recognize the broader implications of adhering to beliefs that are not grounded in reason. History provides ample evidence of the dangers posed by uncritical acceptance of irrational claims, where such beliefs have been used to justify atrocities and maintain oppressive power structures. The challenge, then, is to balance respect for diverse worldviews with a commitment to rational inquiry and empirical evidence.

As we advance in our understanding of the universe through scientific and philosophical exploration, it becomes increasingly important to approach such arguments with both skepticism and openness. The complexity of the cosmos demands that we remain humble in our assertions and rigorous in our reasoning. By doing so, we honor the true spirit of inquiry and move closer to a more accurate understanding of the nature of existence.

Appendix: About the big-bang being a beginning.

Significant advancements in alternative cosmological models such as loop quantum cosmology, conformal cyclic cosmology, and causal set theory, which challenge the traditional Big Bang cosmology. By providing frameworks that avoid singularities and explain anomalies in the CMB, these models offer promising alternatives to our understanding of the universe’s origins. As our observational capabilities and theoretical models improve, we may move closer to unraveling the true nature of the cosmos.

While it is true that a majority of physicists still supports the hypothesis of the Big Bang being the beginning of existence, this support is partly due to inertia, to its strong historical backing. However, a significant minority are exploring alternative models like CCC and LQC, driven by the quest to reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity and to resolve the singularity problem. The split might be roughly estimated as a majority (perhaps 60–70%) favoring a beginning, with a notable minority (30–40%) considering eternal or cyclical models.

Moreover, many physicists who accept the Big Bang theory as the beginning of the universe around 13.8 billion years ago also hold the view that the Big Bang was preceded by an extremely hot, dense state or quantum fluctuations in a vacuum. This vacuum is not “nothing” but a state with potential energy and physical laws.

This leads to the possibility that some physicists may not fully engage with the philosophical implications of their theories, focusing instead on the empirical and mathematical aspects. This might lead to confusion about whether the Big Bang represents an absolute beginning or merely a phase in an ongoing process.

Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC): The Big Bounce

Quantum gravity theories aim to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics and provide a more accurate description of the universe at extremely small scales and high energies, particularly around the Planck epoch (around 10−4310^{-43}10−43 seconds after the Big Bang). At these scales, quantum effects dominate, and the classical description provided by GR is no longer valid.

LQC is a framework derived from Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), which posits that space itself is quantized at the Planck length (≈10−35\approx 10^{-35}≈10−35 meters). According to LQG, space cannot be compressed below this fundamental scale. When applied to cosmology, LQC suggests that instead of a singularity, the universe undergoes a “Big Bounce.”

In LQC, if we trace the universe’s history backward, it would contract until reaching the Planck scale. At this point, quantum effects would cause the contraction to halt and reverse, leading to a bounce rather than a singularity. This implies that the current expanding universe was preceded by a contracting phase of a previous universe. This cyclical model offers a potentially infinite series of expansions and contractions, avoiding the singularity problem of classical GR.

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC)

Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose’s model of an eternal and uncreated universe is known as Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC). This theory proposes a universe that undergoes infinite cycles of expansion and contraction, differing significantly from Big Bounce models like LQC. CCC relies on conformal geometry, which deals with shapes and angles but not sizes. In conformal transformations, angles are preserved, but distances can be stretched or shrunk.

The universe goes through an infinite series of cycles, called “aeons.” Each aeon begins with a Big Bang and ends in an infinitely expanding, smooth state. The end of one aeon transitions into the beginning of the next through conformal compactification. The infinitely large, smooth universe at the end of one aeon can be mathematically transformed into a new Big Bang for the next aeon. In CCC, the end of an aeon is characterized by the universe reaching a state of infinite expansion. All massive particles decay, leaving a universe dominated by massless particles, such as photons and gravitational waves.

The universe becomes conformally invariant because the distinction between finite and infinite distances loses meaning when only massless particles remain. This conformally invariant state at the end of an aeon can be mathematically shrunk down to a finite size without altering its physical properties, creating the conditions for a new Big Bang. The smooth, low-entropy state at the end of an aeon provides the initial conditions for the next aeon, ensuring a fresh start with low entropy and high uniformity.

Penrose and his collaborators have sought evidence for CCC in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. One of their key predictions is the existence of “Hawking points” or “Hawking circles”: Regions in the CMB where the radiation is slightly warmer, believed to be remnants of supermassive black holes from the previous aeon evaporating via Hawking radiation. Penrose’s team has claimed to identify circular patterns in the CMB that could be signatures of gravitational waves or other effects from the previous aeon.

Causal Set Theory

Another approach, causal set theory, posits that space-time is composed of discrete elements and could theoretically remove the need for a beginning. Recent research suggests that this theory might offer a new perspective on the nature of the universe.