Christian Apologetics: the Kalam Cosmological Argument

06/02/15

The argument from the video goes:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause

The video may also have tacked on something about God being the cause as part of the argument, but sometimes that's just assumed and I'm working from memory here.

Now, even if this argument were sound (which is isn't), it wouldn't be an argument for any kind of deity. It is really only arguing that something existed "when" the universe did not. And even that's cheating, because there is no "when" outside of the universe, not as far as time is currently understood, anyways.

What that something is would be completely unknown. It could be what the universe is currently made up of, and whilst the universe exists.

So, again, even if it were sound, it is incredibly poor evidence for a deity.

But is isn't even sound. It's an inductive argument for which its premises, everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the universe had a beginning, are not adequately justified. Yes, inituitively, both of those things make sense, but when speaking on the cosmic scale, you can't trust intuitions to make sense.

Physicist Sean Carrol would tell you that 1) we aren't sure that the universe had a beginning, and 2) if it did have a beginning, the universe could still be self-contained, or uncaused. Which to me makes as much sense as it being caused, because again, timey-whimeyness (time didn't start until the universe started).

So, this is an argument that, if it were sound, wouldn't suggest a God, but it's not necessarily sound, so it's kinda just... pointless.