Continuing on with another excerpt from the ebook What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t Know (But Should):
This brings us to Argument # 2:
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
“You see it’s all clear, you were meant to be here,
from the beginning.”
From “From the Beginning”, by E.L.P.
This argument is deceptively simple, and was used extensively by an 11th century Muslim theologian named Al Ghazali. The word “Kalam” means “speech” in Arabic. In its modern form (as developed by philosopher William Lane Craig) has never been successfully refuted:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause. (5)
Regarding premise 1, notice that the classical notion of God would not be included in this category, as He never began to exist within that understanding. From that viewpoint, He is the necessary “Uncaused Cause” of the universe who created time itself, and has always existed timelessly (“eternally”). The universe, on the other hand, is believed by the majority of both secular and Christian scientists to have begun to exist at a finite point in the past.
“If the Universe Began to Exist, It Must Have a Cause.”
Isn’t it incredible that the Big Bang theory thus fits in with what the Christian theist has always believed: that in the beginning God created the universe? Now think honestly about this; which do you think makes more sense: that the Christian theist is right or that the universe just popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing? I personally don’t think this is a hard one.
Ever since indications began to surface early in the 20th century that the universe had a beginning, attempt after attempt has been made to hypothesize an eternal model to avoid the metaphysical implications of that. Some of these attempts are; the Oscillating Model, the Steady-State Model, and the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, and they have all failed. The “Big Bang” models, which all have a beginning in space and time, have grudgingly become accepted by well over 90% of scientists despite their inherent metaphysical implications, due to overwhelming evidential support.
In a series of papers culminating in 2003, Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. This includes all universe models that honestly assess the available data. Regarding this, Vilenkin states:
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (6)
6) Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), p.176.