19. First Cause and The Kalam Cosmotological Argument

The universe is big—mind-bogglingly big. And it’s old, really old. Around 13.8 billion years old, according to our best estimates. But here’s the billion-dollar question: Why does it exist at all? This is where the Cosmological Argument steps onto the stage, with its main act—the idea of a First Cause. Let’s break this down with a little more precision and a lot more clarity.

What Is the Cosmological Argument?

At its core, the Cosmological Argument says that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe must have a cause. Simple enough, right? But as you dig deeper, things start to get more interesting (or confusing, depending on your tolerance for philosophical gymnastics).

The traditional version—often called the First Cause Argument—goes like this:

1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

But then we get the Kalam Cosmological Argument, a specific flavor that sharpens the focus on beginnings:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Notice the difference? Kalam emphasizes beginnings, sidestepping any awkward questions about things that might have always existed. This is crucial because it forces the argument to confront finite timelines, which makes it a direct confrontation with modern cosmology.

The Big Bang: Science’s First Move

When we talk about the universe beginning, we’re mostly pointing at the Big Bang. Around 13.8 billion years ago, everything that makes up the universe—space, time, matter, and energy—exploded from an unimaginably dense point called a singularity. Before that? There was no “before,” at least not in the way we understand time.

This is where cosmological arguments sink their hooks: How does something come from nothing? And if the universe had a beginning, what caused it? Did it just happen by itself, or did something (or someone) give it that nudge? This is where theists say, “Well, that nudge must be God.”

The Infinite Regress Problem

Now, here’s where things get spicy. If everything needs a cause, then doesn’t God also need a cause? And if God doesn’t, why does the universe? The typical response is that God is necessary—a being that exists outside of time and space, uncaused and eternal. But that sounds a lot like special pleading: Why can’t the universe itself be eternal or uncaused?

Philosophers like to call this the infinite regress problem. If every effect needs a cause, and every cause is an effect of something else, you get a chain that stretches back infinitely. But infinity is weird—it’s not just a long time; it’s endlessly long, which means you could never actually arrive at the present moment if there were infinite steps before it. It would be like trying to count to zero from negative infinity. You’d never get there. So, proponents argue, there must be a First Cause that isn’t itself caused. This is where theists slot God neatly into the picture.

But what if time itself began with the Big Bang? If time started then, there was no “before” to speak of—no time for a cause to act. This pushes the conversation toward quantum physics, where particles appear and disappear in a vacuum without clear causes. The universe, some argue, could have “popped” into existence without a cause, just like quantum particles seem to. It’s weird and counterintuitive, but so is much of quantum mechanics.

Big Bang vs. God: A Showdown on Infinite Regress

This brings us to the real tension: Is it more plausible that a timeless, spaceless, immaterial mind caused the universe, or that the universe itself is a brute fact that emerged from quantum conditions?

1. Proponents of God argue that the universe is too finely tuned and complex to be accidental. A mind must have designed it.
2. Proponents of naturalism suggest that quantum mechanics provides a window into causeless events, making a god unnecessary for the universe’s origin.

The stalemate largely boils down to what you find more compelling: the idea of a timeless mind jumpstarting existence, or the universe emerging from quantum conditions that defy everyday logic.

So, Who’s Right?

The honest answer: nobody really knows. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is persuasive to many because it aligns with our everyday understanding of cause and effect. The Big Bang fits well with this view, suggesting the universe had a beginning, which would require a cause. But quantum mechanics muddies the water, showing that not everything in the universe follows classical logic.

At the end of the day, the Cosmological Argument pushes the question of why there is something rather than nothing right to the edge of human understanding. Whether you chalk it up to God or natural quantum phenomena, you’re still left with a deep, unyielding mystery. And maybe that’s the point—it’s a question that’s designed to be asked, maybe even wrestled with, but not necessarily answered.