The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological argument is probably the most popular argument that is used by theists. And I honestly expect that all the readers are familiar with it. Though I think it is better to first introduce the argument and explain it before coming to my refutation.

The argument follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful, in other words, God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Top to bottom it seems a perfectly logical destruction of atheism, right? Well, it did so to me too when I first glanced at it. But now the case is different. It doesn’t seem reasonable to me at all now. And I will explain why. I will refute it by refuting each of the premises.

The refutation starts:

Premise 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Well…not really. It of course matches with our everyday experience but in the cosmological or quantum scale, it is not true. Big bang(the theory the argument is probably referring to) is a scientific theory which has a strong amount of evidence in support of it(i.e. CMBR, the amount of helium in our universe), but it is not beyond doubt. Recently the data received by BICEP2 has contradicted the data in support of big bang, although I confess it is not confirmed. Recently a Quantum equation, known as the RayChaudhury equation, has been developed by making mathematical interpretation in it and it is looking like disagreeing with the big bang theory. However, doubting big bang is not so common.
However getting something from nothing isn’t a problem. Because when we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity, the gravitational variables become negative quantum variables. In fact, gravity is the only force which has negative charge and negative energy. It balances with the positive amount of energy that is present in our universe in the form of mass. Because both cancel each other out and the ultimate energy of our universe becomes zero(nothing).

Okay okay, it is hard to grasp, let me give an example. Think of a sea beach and a man who wants to build a hill on it. He starts to work hard, half of it gets finished. But wait, he is not only creating a hill, he is also creating a hole, in fact, it is the negative version of the hill. The hill is representing the positive mass, the hole is representing the negative(gravity). Nothing gets created, just gets divided. Some of you may say, ‘You consider a man, then you must consider God when it comes to the universe’. The role of the man is attended by Higgs-boson lately.
Another way it could appear is by a series of Quantum fluctuations from nothing that gets allowed when we consider the uncertainty equation. Either way it is allowed to be causeless.

Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
Despite some ideas against it are present in the scientific community, I will consider this one.

Premise 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
See the refutation of the first premise.

Premise 4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful, in other words, God.
Despite of the irrelevance, if the universe had a cause, it is not necessarily a supernatural one(i.e. It can be cause by Higgs-boson).

Premise 5. Therefore, God exists.
None, of the premises(except one) are beyond questions, in contrast they are unlikely. So the conclusion isn’t likely either. Sorry, but you failed to give a blow to atheism.


8 thoughts on “The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  1. I debated the KCA with a Christian apologist here. You might be interested in how the debate went and how my opponent simply refused to acknowledge quantum mechanic and insisted that his incredulity was a valid rebuttal. He also pointedly refused to acknowledge the dishonesty of assuming your conclusion and thus using a disguised circular argument by playing on an assumed cultural bias.

    Debate – The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s