The Cosmological Argument
The universe is composed of all matter, energy, space, and time. It includes everything from stars and planets to the smallest particles of dust and radiation. A cause is what makes something else happen.
The cosmological argument can be stated as follows:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
From this, we can deduce the nature of this cause: it must be beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, enormously powerful, and personal.
The Nature of the Cause
Why the Cause Must Be Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, and Powerful
Timeless: Because time itself began with the universe, the cause must exist beyond time.
Spaceless: Because physical space began with the universe, the cause cannot be spatial or located in space.
Immaterial: Since all matter is part of the universe, the cause cannot itself be material.
Enormously Powerful: The cause brought the entire universe into being, which requires immense causal power.
Uncaused / Necessary: To avoid infinite regress, the cause itself must not have a beginning.
Why the Cause Must Be Personal
Avoids Eternal Effect Problem: If the cause were impersonal and sufficient, the effect (the universe) would have existed eternally as well. The fact that the universe began a finite time ago shows the cause is not just a blind, necessary condition.
Agent Choice: A personal agent can freely choose to bring about an effect at one moment rather than another. This explains why the universe began 13.8 billion years ago instead of having always existed.
Analogy: If water has always been below 0 °C, it will always be frozen. It will not “suddenly” become liquid unless the temperature changes. Similarly, if an impersonal set of conditions were eternally sufficient for producing the universe, the universe would have always existed. The fact that it began at a finite time suggests the cause is not an automatic condition, but a free agent capable of initiating something new.
Types of Explanation: Scientific causes operate by necessity, while personal causes operate by intention. The beginning of the universe fits better under a personal explanation.
Examining the Premises
Is Premise 1 True?
Is it more likely true than false that "whatever begins to exist has a cause"?
This premise seems intuitively obvious. If you hear a loud bang, your first instinct is to ask what caused it.
Imagine a tiger suddenly appearing in front of you. Would you believe it just popped into existence for no reason, or would you want to know how it got there?
To claim something can come from nothing is worse than magic. In a magic show, when a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat, you at least have the magician and the hat as part of the explanation.
Is Premise 2 True?
There are both philosophical and scientific reasons to believe the universe began to exist.
Philosophical Argument: The Impossibility of an Actual Infinite
First Argument: An Actually Infinite Number of Things Cannot Exist
Potential vs. Actual Infinity: Potential infinity is an ideal limit never reached (like dividing a distance endlessly); actual infinity is a completed collection with more members than any finite number
The Problem: If an actually infinite number of things existed, absurdities would result
Modern Math Objection: Set theory uses infinite sets, but this only shows consistent mathematical discourse—not real existence
Hilbert's Hotel Illustration:
An infinite hotel with all rooms occupied can still accommodate new guests by shifting everyone (guest in room 1->2, room 2->3, etc.), freeing up room 1
Even infinite new guests can be accommodated by moving everyone to even-numbered rooms (room 1->2, room 2->4, room 3->6), leaving all odd rooms vacant
Paradox emerges when guests check out: if all odd-numbered guests leave, infinite people departed but the same infinite number remain
Worse contradiction: if guests in rooms 4, 5, 6... check out, the hotel becomes nearly empty (only 3 guests) despite the same "infinite" number leaving as before
Sign outside would read: "No Vacancy (Guests Welcome)"
Conclusion: Since nothing actually infinite can exist, the number of past events must be finite
Second Argument: You Can't Pass Through an Infinite Number of Elements One at a Time
The Formation Problem: Past events are formed by adding one event after another in sequence, like dominoes falling one by one until reaching today. But if there were infinite past events, you'd have to traverse an infinite series to reach any point—which is impossible
Counting Impossibility:
You can't count to infinity because no matter how high you count, there are always infinitely more numbers left
You can't count down from infinity (...-3, -2, -1, 0) because before counting any number, you'd first have to count infinite numbers before it
If someone claimed to finish counting down from eternity today, why today and not yesterday? They already had infinite time by any past point
Application: If infinite past events had to occur before today, we could never reach today—but we're here
Objection Answered: Critics say any past point is finite distance from present, but this commits the fallacy of composition (confusing parts with the whole)
Additional Absurdities:
Jupiter and Saturn orbiting from eternity would have equal orbits despite Jupiter going twice as fast
Someone counting down from eternity should have finished at any past moment, creating contradictions
Conclusion: No series formed by successive addition can be actually infinite; therefore the universe began to exist
Scientific Evidence
The Big Bang and Expanding Universe
Historical Development:
Einstein's 1917 equations predicted an unstable universe (expanding or contracting), which he initially rejected by adding a cosmological constant
1920s: Friedman and Lemaître independently developed expanding universe models from Einstein's original equations
1929: Hubble discovered galactic redshift, confirming universal expansion
Key Evidence:
Galactic redshift: Light from distant galaxies appears redder due to space itself expanding
No center: All observers see other galaxies receding, like buttons on an inflating balloon surface
Light element abundance: The observed ratio of helium (~25%) to hydrogen (~75%) in the universe matches precise predictions from Big Bang nucleosynthesis—the process where light elements formed in the first few minutes when the universe was hot and dense enough for nuclear fusion
Cosmic microwave background: 1965 discovery of radiation remnant from the Big Bang
Beginning of Space-Time:
Tracing expansion backward leads to a point where all distances become zero
This represents the boundary of space and time itself—not an explosion into pre-existing space
Augustine anticipated this: God created time simultaneously with the universe
Modern Confirmation:
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem (2003): Any universe that has been expanding on average cannot be past-eternal
Applies even to multiverse theories
After 80+ years of attempts to avoid a beginning, all viable models predict one
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a significant finding in cosmology, supports this conclusion. Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
For further reading, see " The Beginning Was the Beginning ".
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy (disorder) always increases. If the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time, it should have reached a state of maximum entropy, or "heat death," where all energy is evenly distributed and no work can be done.
The question that needs to be asked is this: if the universe has existed forever, why is it not in a state of heat death right now? The fact that our universe is still active and has usable energy is strong evidence that it has not existed for an infinite duration and, therefore, must have had a beginning.
Conclusion
Summary of the Argument
Premise 1 is well-supported: The principle that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" aligns with universal experience and rational intuition. Nothing comes from nothing without explanation.
Premise 2 has strong evidence: The universe began to exist, supported by philosophical arguments against an actual infinite past and scientific discoveries about the origin of the cosmos.
The conclusion follows logically: If both premises are true, then the universe must have a cause.
Attributes of the Cause
This cause must be:
Timeless and spaceless, existing independently of the physical universe
Immaterial, not composed of matter or energy
Enormously powerful, capable of bringing the universe into being
Personal, with the agency to will a temporal effect from a changeless state
Significance
The Kalam Cosmological Argument bridges philosophy and science to show that the universe points beyond itself to a transcendent cause. While it does not describe every attribute of God, it establishes a rational foundation for believing that a personal, immaterial reality stands behind the origin of everything that begins to exist.