A scientist responds to the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Geoff Kirby
Jul 31
12 min read

By Geoff Kirby

Geoff joined the Civil Service in 1960 as a scientist and took early retirement in 1993. He then worked part-time as a consulting scientist until 2005, when he decided to fully retire in order to study for an Open University degree in Environmental Sciences. He has since had a very enjoyable and busy retirement writing nine books on a wide range of topics. He is member of West Dorset Humanists.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument gets its name from “kalam”, an Arabic word meaning speech or theology. In Islamic intellectual history, kalam refers to a tradition of rational theological debate, particularly around the existence of God, the nature of the universe, and metaphysics. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a modern formulation of an ancient argument for the existence of a universe-creating deity. Originally proposed by the 11th-century Persian Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali, the recent version of the chain of logical assertions leads to the proposal that:

“An uncaused, personal Creator of our universe exists, who, without the universe, is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.”

This modern version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument was set out in a book by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig in 1979. I argue here that some steps in the logical chain of assertions are not valid. Furthermore, the conclusion above is not on a par with scientific explanations of the origin of our universe because it makes no testable predictions nor explains why the universe is the way it is. Science progresses by posing hypotheses, using these to make predictions, testing those predictions by measurements, rejecting the hypotheses that don’t work and developing those that do.

Typical questions that I would like to see supporters of Kalam answer include:

Why is the universe we inhabit expanding?
Where has all the anti-matter gone?
Why are sub-atomic particles made up of quarks of six different types?

We don’t get any answers from the Kalam argument. However, science is working on it.

There are nine assumptions in the Kalam Argument. Each is claimed to follow logically from the previous arguments:

1. Everything that begins has a cause

This proposition has been the subject of long-standing philosophical and scientific debate. In particular, Quantum Theory is often cited as a challenge to the idea that everything must have a cause. Some interpretations suggest that particles can be created spontaneously from what is called the relativistic quantum field-theoretical vacuum state. Please don’t ask me to explain what that means—ChatGPT came up with that! The key point is that Quantum Theory doesn’t offer a single, clear answer.

There are two main interpretations of quantum mechanics worth noting. The first is the Copenhagen Interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr. This view holds that events on the atomic scale are fundamentally random and unpredictable. For example, if you observe a radioactive atom, it will eventually decay into a different type of atom, but the precise moment this happens is inherently random. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, such events appear to be uncaused.

Albert Einstein famously disliked this view, remarking, “God does not play dice with the universe.” He preferred a deterministic explanation, believing that quantum events have hidden causes we simply can’t observe. This idea led to the Bohmian Interpretation, or the “hidden variables” theory, which suggests that everything — including quantum events — does have a cause. However, we currently have no way of accessing or testing these hypothetical hidden variables, so this version of quantum theory remains speculative.

In short, science does not currently provide a definitive answer to whether everything that begins must have a cause. However, the prevailing view is that Quantum Theory does not definitively rule out the possibility. For now, we may have to leave the question to philosophers, theologians, and scientists — to keep scratching their heads over it.

The second assumption is:

2. The universe began to exist

This is a no-brainer as we observe an expanding universe and everyone agrees that there must have been a start to this expansion.

Moving on to the third and fourth assumptions :

3. The universe has a cause and 4. The cause of the existence of our universe is uncaused otherwise there would be an infinite chain of causes

These are the third and fourth assumptions behind the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Supporters accept them as foundational, but it’s important to understand that they are not logical necessities. Whether the universe had a cause depends entirely on what was present — or not present — when our universe came into existence.

While the expansion of our universe is beyond doubt and must have had a beginning, this doesn’t automatically mean that the universe itself had a singular cause. One alternative is the “Big Bounce” theory, which proposes that our universe formed from the remnants of a previous universe. According to this view, there has been an infinite cycle of universes — expanding, slowing down, collapsing into unimaginably dense states, and then rebounding into new universes.

The idea of an infinite sequence of universes makes many philosophers and theologians uncomfortable, but mathematicians and scientists tend to have no such qualms. In fact, infinities are everywhere in science.

Take quantum mechanics. When subatomic particles like electrons move, they don’t behave like tiny snooker balls; they behave like waves, spreading out in all directions. To predict the movement of a single electron, quantum equations must account for every possible path it could take — an infinite number of paths. The physicist Richard Feynman developed a method for calculating this, and it earned him a Nobel Prize. His method produces results so accurate they match experimental data to within one part in billions. Quantum mechanics is, by far, the most precisely verified theory in the history of science.

Infinities also appear in Einstein’s theory of gravity. At the centres of black holes, for example, general relativity predicts densities that approach infinity. And if you could watch someone fall into a black hole, relativity suggests it would appear to take them an infinite amount of time to reach the event horizon.

We also encounter the concept of infinity in everyday thought experiments. Take the distance from where I’m standing to the nearest toilet — say, sixteen metres. To get there, I must first travel eight metres, then four, then two, and so on, with each step being half the distance of the previous one. Mathematically, that’s an infinite number of steps, so in theory, I could never reach the toilet. Yet, I do — in good time, and usually without incident! That’s Zeno’s Paradox, from around 450 BCE. And it reminds us that infinity doesn't always mean "impossible".

In short, infinity isn’t a problem for scientists or mathematicians. Only theologians and philosophers seem to struggle with it. The Big Bounce theory may have fallen out of favour — our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and may continue to do so forever. If that’s the case, it could exist for an infinite future. Over trillions of years, the stars will die and cool to absolute zero. Nothing appears likely to reverse or halt this process. Yet cosmologists are comfortable predicting this infinite timeline of decay.

Mathematician Georg Cantor laid the foundations for understanding infinities back in the late 1800s (see his Wikipedia article for a quick dive — reference 9 below). And if you want a fun, brain-bending example of infinity in action, look up Hilbert’s Hotel, often referenced in Kalam literature (reference 10). It’s a surreal thought experiment that shows just how strange — and yet logically consistent — the infinite can be.

5. The cause of our universe must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial and enormously powerful to be able to create the universe

This is another key assumption of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The reasoning goes: since time and space began with our universe, whatever caused it must exist outside time and space — hence timeless, spaceless, and immaterial — and must be immensely powerful to bring a universe into being.

At first glance, this seems logical. If time and space are unique to our universe, then whatever lies beyond it must exist in a timeless, immaterial void. But there’s a serious flaw in this assumption: it ignores the possibility that our universe is embedded in a different space-time altogether, unrelated to our own. This alternative is not considered in the Kalam argument — and when we do consider it, the fifth assumption collapses. Our universe could have originated within another universe’s space and time. In fact, a new theory published just this month (hot off the press!) proposes that our universe may exist inside a black hole — that it emerged from the gravitational singularity at the core of another universe’s black hole (see reference 11). If true, our universe originated within a space-time framework entirely separate from our own. Sorry! No room for a spaceless, timeless deity there!

So how, exactly, would a universe-creating entity go about its task? It would need to plan the universe, determine the laws of physics, set the values of physical constants to allow for sentient life (if that were the goal), assemble the materials, and then bring it all into existence. The scale of the task would be mind-boggling. Our universe contains approximately 10⁸⁰ subatomic particles — quarks, neutrinos, Higgs bosons, and more. At birth, its internal energy was around 10⁷⁶ joules. Creating such a universe would require a process — a chain of time-ordered, causally linked events, just as any civil engineer or systems designer would recognise. But how could such a causal process unfold in a timeless, immaterial void — a realm where no time passes, no materials exist, and where theologians simply assert that causality doesn’t apply? Theologians often try to escape the infinite regress of causes by declaring, without explanation, that the creator is uncaused, outside time, and can do anything. Meanwhile, scientists develop theories that make testable predictions, grounded in evidence and logical coherence.

6. The cause of the universe must be personal, possessing non-deterministic agency, in creating the universe from a timeless state

There was much discussion in our West Dorset Humanist Group about what is meant by the word “personal”. I took this as meaning an interventionist deity who went on to manipulate the universe it had created. It went on to communicate and physically react with any sentient life forms within it.

The question of whether there is an interventionist god is outside the brief of this discussion. My search for evidence of such a deity has been unsuccessful since I gave up belief in gods in 1951. Maybe this could be the topic of a future discussion?

7. The cause of the universe must be singular, in the absence of good reasons to believe in one or more uncaused causes

This step is illogical since it can be reversed to say: “The cause of the universe must be multiple, in the absence of good reasons to believe in a singular uncaused cause.” Surely the more gods the better?

“A job shared is a job done better,” as my dear old grandmother used to say. Is it a coincidence that, by arbitrarily choosing a monotheistic option, the supporters of the Kalam Argument are arguing for the monotheistic Abrahamic deity and dismissing the polytheistic religions such as Hinduism, and the ancient Roman, Greek, Viking, etc., religions?

Some commentators supporting the premise that there must be a singular deity cite Occam’s Razor:

“When faced with a choice of explanations, choose the simplest.” Occam’s Razor is not a valid scientific or logical philosophical tool for examining the validation of theories. These have to be judged on their predictive accuracy when applied to real situations. Many examples can be cited to show where the more complicated option turns out to be the right one. I’m going to state seven options for the way that our universe may have come into existence and I’m going to apply Occam’s Razor to the options. Remember, we must choose the simplest option.

The Big Bulk option
The Big Bang option
The Entropic Universe option
The Multiverse option
The Holographic Universe/String Theory option
The Universe created in a Black Hole option
God Did It

So, Occam’s Razor doesn’t really work because it has come up with a simple option – “God did it” which makes no predictions, is untestable and not scientific in the Karl Popper sense. So, forget Occam’s Razor.

8. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who, without the universe, is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful

Wow! A whole lot of assumptions have suddenly appeared from nowhere – just like our universe?

9. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of our universe exists, who, without the universe, is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful

I believe, and you may not agree with me, that those conclusions do not follow from those Kalam assumptions that I have described earlier.

My summary is that the Kalam chain of propositions is flawed – for example in proposing an uncaused god engaging in a vastly complex caused manufacturing process to produce a material universe outside of space and time. And all done as if by magic without explanation. Just like that!

The Kalam argument makes no testable predictions (unlike scientific theories) and so is a weak and flawed argument.

The Anthropic Principle

A better argument for the existence of a universe-creating deity-like entity is the Anthropic Principle – also known as the “Goldilocks Enigma”. The Anthropic Principle asks: “Why is our universe so exquisitely tuned to allow life like ours to exist?” Note that the word “Anthropic” means human so the question is targeted at why the universe is so very finely tuned to support human lives. How very anthropocentric!

In a paper published earlier this year it has been estimated that there are about 200 billion planets in our galaxy and about two trillion galaxies in our universe. Multiply those numbers together and we get a very large estimate of the number of planets – about 400 billion trillion. To get a grip on this number, imagine a pile of sand with one grain of sand for each planet in the universe. That pile of sand would cover the whole of Wales and reach 140 kilometres into space. Can we really believe that our universe was carefully fine-tuned just for us humans rather than the near-certain billions – maybe trillions – of other sentient lifeforms? This argument also applies to ideas – such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument – that a deity created our universe just for our benefit. Really?

Earth has experienced five major mass extinction events in the last 500 million years. During one of them, the Permian-Triassic extinction, 90% of all species died. At each of these events our ancestors very nearly went extinct. Humanity also nearly became extinct due to a climate disaster. About 900,000 years ago in the ancestry of pre-humans migrating from Africa, it is estimated that as few as 1,280 individuals survived to breed and eventually produce us. On a galactic scale, life is also very, very fragile.

Our universe is crammed with two trillion galaxies which collide. The Andromeda Galaxy, with its trillion-star systems, will collide with our galaxy in a few billion years. It is unlikely that life on either galaxy will survive that cataclysmic encounter. The universe is definitely NOT human-friendly and was not created as a safe home for humanity. Far from being friendly to the human race, the universe seems to be working towards wiping it out. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable observation that our universe is indeed exquisitely tuned to favour life existing. Just a small change in any of two dozen physical parameters would have made it uninhabitable.

Take the force of gravity, for example. Had gravity been just a little stronger then our universe would not have been expanding for 13.79 billion years allowing stars, galaxies, planets and life to exist. Instead, our universe would have expanded to a very small size but then quickly collapsed back into a spectacular fireball. Had gravity been slightly less strong than it is then the universe would have expanded too quickly for the primordial gas to condense into stars and planets. Our universe would have remained a rapidly expanding tenuous gas – no life and expanding for ever!

This is also true of many other physical parameters such as the Strong Nuclear Force – a few percentage points change and we would not have atoms. The universe would be just a thin soup of protons and electrons. So, was there a deity fine-tuning the “Big Bang” to make our universe favourable to life? Where was this deity, claimed to be outside our space and time, twiddling all those knobs to tune the universe? The concept of a timeless deity engaging in the fine-tuning of a universe seems incoherent. Fine-tuning implies a temporal process — a sequence of deliberate adjustments — which contradicts the very notion of timelessness.

A rather trite response is that we can only live in and observe a universe that suits us. However, if our universe is the only one then this implies, very possibly, that our universe was “created” for us, and this is a much more convincing case for a creator god than the Kalam Argument. However, our state of knowledge is not yet developed enough to say whether we live in the only universe – implying it was created for us – or that there are an unimaginable number of other universes. If the latter, then we could postulate many types of life-friendly universes and we occupy one that suits us.

The existence of multiverses – possibly as many as 10⁵⁰⁰ – is predicted by Quantum Gravity String Theory. This means that pretty much every type of universe can exist somewhere in the universe zoo and we just live in one that suits us. Our ability to exist in our universe therefore does not mean that a god created it thus for our benefit.