Background:
The Kalām Cosmological Argument is a very simple argument for the existence of God which consists of two premises and a conclusion. This argument is a part of a family of arguments grouped together as “Cosmological Arguments.” These include the Kalām Cosmological Argument, the Thomistic Cosmological Argument, and the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument.1
The Kalām Cosmological Argument was made by many Christian philosophers to support their theory of creatio ex nihilo, meaning creation out of nothing. Now this was happening in an environment where the majority belief of the time was that the world was eternal. The Christian philosopher John Philoponous who wrote two works, Against Aristotle and On the Eternity of the World against Proclus, in which he argued that the world has not always existed, rather the world came to exist a finite time ago and was created out of no eternal/pre-existing matter. He was the first to argue against an eternal universe by arguing that the physical world we live in could not have been made of causes going back forever. Each event or cause depends on a previous one, but there’s no starting point. Imagine a line of dominoes falling. For each domino to fall, the one before it must fall first. But if the first domino itself never falls, then none of the others can fall either. In an infinite regress, you would keep asking, “What caused this?” but you would never reach a beginning event—because each event depends on something before it, and there’s no end to the chain. After John Philoponous, when the Greek works of philosophers started being translated into Arabic, these arguments circulated amongst Muslim theologians of the Medieval era, such as Imam al-Ghazali, who then refined the argument which took the form in which it is known today. Thereafter it circled back to the Christians via the Jewish theologians and philosophers. Due to the work of modern Christian philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig, this argument has seen a new life breathed into it.2 This argument is now called the Kalām Cosmological Argument because it was developed by Islamic Theologians during the Medieval Age under the field of study known as ilm-ul-Kalām.3 The idea of whether the universe was eternal in the past or not was a hot topic between philosophers and theologians. This debate even extended over a thousand years!4 The idea that the universe is eternal has been such a reprehensible idea to traditional Islamic scholars, philosophers, and theologians. For example, Imam al-Ghazali writes in his book Tahafut al Falasifah (Incoherence of the Philosophers) where referring to the belief in the eternal history of the universe among other beliefs, he says, “there are philosophical theories which conflict with the fundamental principles of religion, e.g., the religious doctrines of the world’s beginning in time…”5 Moreover, the Promised Messiah (peace be upon him) states that it is “a false doctrine that all particles of matter and all souls are eternal and uncreated.”6
The Argument:
The argument itself is very simple; it has two premises and a conclusion. It is easy to memorize and the premises seem very intuitively obvious, which is a good thing for one arguing for the existence of God by using this argument. The argument is:
P1: Everything that begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
P2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.9
The cosmological argument is also elaborated in the Quran in Surah at-Tur, verses 36-37, “Have they been created out of nothing? Or are they themselves the creators? Did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no faith.”
Regarding this, Ibn Taymiyya(may Allah have mercy on him), a renowned classical Islamic scholar, said: “This categorisation is the easiest and clearest way that one can reason the existence of a creator with the most minimal amount of introspection. This is because the slave knows that he once did not exist, and that he came into existence after he did not exist…He also knows that he did not create himself or bring himself into existence, and this is known as a matter of critical certainty… He also knows that his creation could not be without a creator, and that there is no cause without effect… If he knows this, then he will know how to reason the existence of the heavens and the Earth.”10
Moreover, the Promised Messiah (peace be upon him) has stated in The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam regarding the verse “And that to thy Lord do all things ultimately go” (53:43):
“The second proof for the existence of God is that the Holy Quran has set forth is that God is the ultimate cause of all causes…If we observe carefully, we find that the system of the world is bound together in a system of cause and effect. This system is at the root of all knowledge. No part of creation is outside this system. Some things are the roots of others and some are branches. A cause may be primary or may be the effect of another cause, and that in its turn may be the effect of still another cause, and so on. Now, it is not possible that in this finite world this pattern of cause and effect should have no limit and should be infinite. We are compelled to acknowledge that it must terminate with some ultimate cause. The ultimate cause is God. Open your eyes and see that the [above] verse sets forth this argument very concisely and affirms that the system of cause and effect terminates in God.”11
Analysis:
Let’s take a look at the first premise. This premise has empirical support to the best degree. We see all around us that whatever begins to exist is caused by something else and we find no exception to this rule. We have always seen that when we look around us, we can find ourselves in situations where we observe causes taking their effects. Due to the fact that we have always seen this to be the case, and we do not find any example to the contrary, we have the strongest empirical support for premise one of the argument. If I were to see a dent form on a surface, then I can be sure to see what caused the dent as well –an object of some mass colliding against the surface resulting in a dent. However, nowhere will I see a horse pop into existence out of nothing.
The second premise is “the universe began to exist.” There is a lot of philosophical and scientific support for this premise. Firstly, it is nearly agreed-upon that the current Big Bang Cosmology is a correct and accurate representation of the universe’s origins. Furthermore, time is known to have started at the initial singularity. What is more relevant however, are philosophical arguments for the support of this premise. Philosophical arguments are founded on a logical foundation, and so they must be true. There are multiple philosophical arguments which are very good at showing that the universe could not have gone back in time forever. Any idea of the universe having existed forever assumes the real existence of actual infinities. By “real existence” what is meant is a tangible, physical existence of a series of causes that is actually infinite. By putting a little thought, it becomes clear that an actual infinity of causes cannot really exist! Infinite is endless, and by definition it is impossible to go over an endless series. A very easy-to-understand explanation is laid out by Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmad Sahib, M.A. in his book Our God. He says, “If someone thinks that who is the Creator and Master of a particular being arises on and on ad infinitum about every being, and so, no such being could be established that could be called the first being, the answer is that such an eventuality would be logically impossible. If we accept no one as the first being in this chain, inevitably, we will have to deny the existence of all the lower beings, including this universe, which resulted from the first being.”12
Dr William Lane Craig also illustrates this with another simple argument. In his entry in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, he says:
“In order for us to have ‘arrived’ at today, temporal existence has, so to speak, traversed an infinite number of prior events. But before the present event could arrive, the event immediately prior to it would have to arrive, and before that event could arrive, the event immediately prior to it would have to arrive and so on ad infinitum. No event could ever arrive, since before it could elapse there will always be one more event that will had to have happened first. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have arrived, which is absurd.”13
Moreover, David Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of our age was well-acquainted with the actual infinite in mathematics. He also gives an illustration of the absurdity of having a physical actual infinite. He tells us to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms each filled with guests. Now, when new guests arrive at the hotel, the man at the main desk says, “Hold on a minute!” Then he moves the people in room 1 to room 2, the people in room 2 to room 3, and so on and so forth. Now, what has happened here is that the new guests have been accommodated and can be perpetually accommodated, and if one asks what was the number of guests prior to their arrival, the answer would be infinite, and if one asks what the number of guests after the arrival, it would likewise be infinite! The front of the hotel might as well say: “We’ve got no space, come on in!” Now, it becomes evident that to add to an infinite is absurd. David Hilbert said regarding the actual infinite:
“The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a basis for rational thought – a remarkable harmony between being and thought… The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”15 Therefore the universe began to exist. Thus, there is a Cause for its existence.
Part 2
Cosmological Arguments don’t just end there. There’s a step two to these arguments. There is further argumentation that is required to get from a First Cause to what we would call God. Due to the very fact of being the First Cause, it would be uncaused, for if it were caused it would not be the First Cause. Moreover, it would be beginningless since anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. It would have to be immaterial because prior to the universe, there was no matter. Moreover, the cause is a free agent with completely free will. This is because we observe two types of causes in our world. Personal agents and inanimate causes that seem to necessitate their effects. It is observed that objects that are not animate and without a will are always doing what is in their nature and immediately does it too. Take gravity as an example; if one takes any object of some mass and drops it, it will drop down immediately provided there is no hindrance. It will not be the case that there would be a delay nor would there be differences in the time the effect follows from the cause. In any situation, an object of some mass will immediately start falling towards the ground if it is let go of. However, we only see free persons as determining when the effects of their causes will be. For example, we see all around us people fully capable of sitting down and getting up, however, people take different times doing these things, depending on their own will. This is proof that the First Cause must have had will because that would explain why a temporal effect proceeded from an Eternal Cause. Moreover, since the world would have needed immense power to have been created, we know the First Cause is immensely powerful as well. So, just by an analysis of the attributes of the First Cause, we get to a being that sounds to us a lot like God as described in philosophical theism.
What about the Islamic Concept of God?
Having gone over the Kalām Cosmological Argument and having argued against the physical existence of actual infinities, one may start to wonder: hold on, do we not believe that God is infinite? The infinity we are refuting is a causal infinity. One composed of specific and individual causes that when taken together form an infinity. However, God is not infinite in the sense that we have refuted above, because God is not made up of physical parts the way the universe is. God is One and has no physical parts to Him. Thus, any arguments against the existence of actual infinities do not apply to Him. The God of Islam has many attributes which are not exactly proven by this argument, however there is a reason some attributes of Allah are known to us through revelation, and not through mere reason. Moreover, the Holy Quran itself is in agreement with the concept of creation out of nothing. Multiple places, the Holy Quran describes God as Creator. For example, the Quran that God is فاطر, the One who creates out of nothing.
Conclusion:
Although fairly straightforward, the Kalām Cosmological Argument is a conclusive method to prove the existence of God, yet it is just one of the many logical ways to prove God’s existence. Logical reasoning can incline man towards the belief in the existence of God, yet it cannot be enough to grant people complete certainty. The existence of God cannot be manifest unless God Himself discloses to us His existence through revelation as He has done by sending down the Holy Quran.The Promised Messiah (peace be upon him) writes, “Search for God is a difficult matter. It is not an affair of worldly philosophers and wise men. Observation of the heavens and earth only leads to the conclusion that although orderliness indicates that the universe should have a Creator yet it is not proof that such a Creator in fact exists. There is a great deal of difference between ought to be and is. The Holy Quran is the only book that sets forth His existence as a fact and not only urges the seeking of God but makes Him manifest. There is no other book which makes manifest the Hidden Being.”16
Footnotes:
1 Paul Copan and Paul Moser, The Rationality of Theism (Routledge, 2004), pg. 112
2 William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 101.
3 Paul Copan and Paul Moser, The Rationality of Theism (Routledge, 2004), pg. 112
4 Craig, William. “The Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Lecture, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 2015.
5 Al-Ghazali, Tahafut al-Falasifah, ed. Pakistan Philosophical Congress (Lahore: Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1978), pg. 8
6 Munawar Ahmad Saeed, ed., The Essence of Islam, Volume I, trans. Chaudhry Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, 3rd ed. (Islamabad: Islam International Publications Ltd., 2007), pgs. 16-17
7 Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pg. 183
8Ibid.
9 William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, eds., The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 102.
10 Ibn Taymiyyah, A. (2012) Mas’alah ḥudūth al-ʿālam. Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, pp. 49-50.
11 Ghulam Ahmad. 2010. The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam. Translated by Muhammad Zafrullah Khan. Tilford: Islam International Publications, pg. 88
12 Mirza Bashir Ahmad, Hadrat and Islam International Publications LTD. 2016. Our God. Islam International Publications Ltd. https://www.alislam.org., pgs. 82-83
13 Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pg. 77
15 Russell, Principles, p. 496
16 Ghulam Ahmad. 2007. The Essence of Islam. Translated by Muhammad Zafrullah Khan. Tilford: Islam International Publications, pg. 6
Bibliography
1. Ahmad, Ghulam. The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam. Translated by Muhammad Zafrullah Khan. Tilford: Islam International Publications, 2010.
2. Ahmad, Mirza Bashir, Hadrat, and Islam International Publications LTD. Our God. Islamabad: Islam International Publications Ltd., 2016. https://www.alislam.org. 3. Al-Ghazali. Tahafut al-Falasifah. Edited by Pakistan Philosophical Congress. Lahore: Pakistan Philosophical Congress, 1978.
4. Copan, Paul, and Paul Moser. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge, 2004. 5. Craig, William. “The Kalām Cosmological Argument.” Lecture, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, 2015.
6. Craig, William Lane, and J. P. Moreland, eds. The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
7. Ibn Taymiyyah, A. Mas’alah ḥudūth al-ʿālam. Beirut: Dār al-Bashā’ir al-Islāmiyyah, 2012.
8. Martin, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
9. Russell, Bertrand. The Principles of Mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903.
10. Saeed, Munawar Ahmad, ed. The Essence of Islam, Volume I. Translated by Chaudhry Muhammad Zafrullah Khan. 3rd ed. Islamabad: Islam International Publications Ltd., 2007.
