Kalam Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

803 Words4 Pages

The Kalam Cosmological Argument The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a theory of religion that attempts to explain the existence of God by the following: Whatever began to exist must have a cause, unlike God, the Universe began to exist, Thus, there must be an uncaused cause of the Universe, namely God. Through examining the many criticisms of this argument, it is discernible that it is not valid and does not achieve the purpose of proving God's existence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is favorable over Tomas Aquainas’ traditional Cosmological Argument, which says: Some things are caused, nothing can cause itself, so everything must be caused by an external force, namely God, because it is more specific, especially by encapsulating evidence …show more content…

Vacuum fluctuations are tendencies of particles to spawn in and out of existence in a vacuum, which shows they are random events without cause. This disproves the premise that all things must have a cause, and if particles can exist without a cause then it is possible that our universe can exist without a cause. “Vic Stenger, for example, claims that ‘We can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that something is more natural than nothing!”’ (Schick 449). The Universe may not have been caused by anything, as the belief that nothing is more natural than nothing is flawed, and the spontaneous creation of something from nothing is not …show more content…

Many events and natural occurrences suggest the opposite of a perfect God. Natural disasters, diseases, and death prove an imperfect world, and if a perfect God existed why would he create an imperfect world? Along with this is the criticism that this argument does not prove why there is only one God. The creation of the Universe could have been part of a collaborative effort from many different causes, nowhere in the argument does it hold that there must have been one