Questions about the origin of the universe have been at the center of humanity's curiosity from the time humanity's existence. With such curiosity, there is also profound implications regarding the answer to the question: Is a transcendent cause responsible for the existence of the universe? No wonder the debate still rages on within the confines of classrooms, debates stages, blogs, church services, and coffee shop talk. Do reason and scientific data point to a transcendence cause as the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe or is the universe a byproduct of mechanical processes?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA hereafter), utilizing both philosophy and modern scientific discoveries, seeks to show that the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe is a transcendent cause which possesses specific properties. The argument is as follows:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If the first two premises are true, then it follows that premise #3 is also true, making the argument sound. Therefore, let us now look at the first premise.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The first premise seems to be intuitively right as well as verified by science. For, we know that something cannot come from nothing. If something can come from nothing, there is a serious question which everyone should ask, "why doesn't anything or everything come into being from nothing?" You know, I want a brand new Xbox One S, and I would rather not pay for it either. Is there any chance it will pop into existence from nothing?...I'll be waiting a long time. Alternatively, what about my bank account? I could use some money, what are the chances that $1,000 pops into my account out of nothing? I probably have a better chance of winning the lottery. Even now, as you're reading this blog, are you worried that when you go home from work (or vice versa) that as you open the door, a male lion will pop into being out of nothing and maul you? This begs the question: Why is "nothing" so discriminatory? Why is it the universe that happens to pop into existence from nothing (according to skeptics)?
Nothing is always nothing.
Whenever someone talks about a universe from "nothing" we need to keep in mind the strict definition of nothing which is a universal negative, "no thing." Therefore, under this definition "nothing" can't replicate, metabolize, reproduce, or bring anything into existence. What some skeptics seek to pass as "nothing" is merely a redefinition to fit their worldview. When Christians here stories of “quantum fluctuations producing virtual particles out of nothing” what needs to be understood is that these types of occurrences aren’t literally “nothing” but rather the byproduct of processes which have been set in place since the formation of the universe within the universe.
Therefore, we can conclude that based on what humanity has observed experientially and scientifically, something does not come from “no thing.” Things like Xbox’s, lions, money, and the universe which begin to exist must have a cause.