 To know and understand the Kalam Argument for the existence of God.  To evaluate the Kalam argument.

 A philosophical argument which aims to prove the existence of God.  It is a variant of the Cosmological argument.

 The Kalam argument began in Medieval times with Islamic scholars.  The word Kalam means ‘speech’ in Arabic.  It was then overshadowed for may years by more popular forms of the Cosmological argument, especially those by Thomas Aquinas.  Its resurgence has in the 20 th Century has been at the hands of American philosopher William Lane Craig.

 The Cosmological argument was first developed in the 3 rd and 4 th Century by Plato and Aristotle.  It is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that: - everything has a cause - that there must have been a first cause - and that this first cause was itself uncaused.

 The Kalam argument dates back to medieval Muslim philosophers, such as al-Kindi and al- Ghazali.  It has recently been restored to popularity by William Lane Craig.  Like the Cosmological argument, the Kalam argument aims to prove the existence of God.  The Kalam argument also states that everything has a first cause, therefore the universe must have a first cause and that cause must be God.

Cosmological arguments The Kalam Cosmological argument  (1) Everything that exists has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe exists. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists  (1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. (2) The universe has a beginning of its existence. Therefore: (3) The universe has a cause of its existence. (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God. Therefore: (5) God exists.

 Explain the difference between the Kalam argument and the cosmological argument

 The Cosmological argument claims that the universe in infinite. The universe has always existed.  The Kalam Cosmological argument claims that the universe in finite. There was a point in time when the universe came into existence

 As the universe has a beginning in time then the universe has a cause of its existence and that cause is God.  The uncaused existence of God, who does not have a beginning in time, is consistent with the initial claim of this argument:  “Everything that has a beginning in time has a cause.”  God does not have a beginning in time therefore God is uncaused according to the argument.  The Kalam argument is therefore more consistent that the simple Cosmological argument.

 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.  The universe began to exist.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.  That cause is God.

 Therefore, the universe has a cause.  That cause is God.  The universe began to exist.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

 A premise is a ‘truth claim’.  The Kalam argument has two premises which tie together to draw a conclusion.

 Philosophical support for causes of beginnings (premise 1):  It is more plausible to say that things that begin to exist have a cause than to say they do not have a cause.  Therefore, the Burden of Proof is on those who wish to say that there is no cause.

 Philosophical support for the impossibility of an ‘actual infinite’ (premise 2).  A potential infinite is where we could start counting and potentially continue forever.  An actual infinite is where we do not start or stop counting. There is no beginning and no end.  Many argue that an ‘actual infinite’ is impossible.  If ‘actual infinites’ are impossible and although the universe may be ‘potentially infinite’ it must have a beginning.

 The Kalam argument is a ‘deductive argument’  This means that if it is logically valid and its premises are true then the conclusion must be true.

 The classical objection is- WHO MADE GOD?  Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell stated in his book ‘Why I am not a Christian’:  ‘Who made God? That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything has a cause then God must have a first cause’.

 The Kalam argument does not say that everything has a cause.  Rather it claims, whatever begins to exist has a cause.  The Kalam argument claims that the first cause is uncaused.

 If you were asked to summarise the Kalam argument in one minute what would you say?  What is the classical objection to the Kalam argument? Argue for and against it.  Do you think the Kalam argument would convince an atheist or agnostic that God exists?  What scientific theory for the existence of the universe do you think relates to the Kalam argument?