Does God Exist? The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, or KCA, is an old argument for the existence God, i.e. the first cause of the universe.  I have some thoughts on it.

Here is the argument in syllogistic form:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
4. That cause was God.

Points 1-3 formulate a valid deductive argument, which means that if premises 1 and 2 are true, then the conclusion, i.e. point 3, is necessarily true.  However, I'm not sure that this is a sound argument, which means that premises 1 and 2 are, in fact, true.

Point 4 may or may not logically follow from the preceding 3 points.  More on that below.

As I've said before, one way to disagree with a logically valid argument is to object to the truth of at least one of its premises.  In that regard, I have several objections that deal mainly with the ambiguous definitions of the terms used in the argument.

Objection 1

First of all, the word cause is ambiguous.  In my opinion, premise 1 and, therefore, point 3 should be clarified to read like the following:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a natural cause.

and

     3.  Therefore the universe has a natural cause.

This wording more accurately represents the axiom of causality to which it refers, i.e. effects have natural causes.  Although some things may have supernatural causes, this idea does not fit into the axiom of causality to which the first premise refers.  This is because the axiom of causality is a scientific axiom, and there is probably no scientific knowledge of anything supernatural, let alone supernatural causes.  Therefore, supernatural causes should not be included in premise 1 and, therefore, point 3.

Also, this clarification renders point 4 improbable, because by definition God is not natural.

One counter-objection to my objection is that premise 1 does not refer to the axiom of causality, but rather to a metaphysical or philosophical rule of causation that transcends the boundary between the natural and supernatural world.  Although this metaphysical rule possibly exists, it is speculative to say that it does.  Therefore, it is especially speculative to use it as the premise of an argument. 

Objection 2

My second objection is that the phrase begins to exist is ambiguous.  To clarify the phrase, one should note that, to current scientific knowledge, everything that begins to exist is actually a reformulation of previously existing matter and energy.  Therefore, premises 1 and 2 could be reworded to read like the following:

1. Whatever is a reformulation of previously existing matter and energy has a natural cause.

and

     2.  The universe is a reformulation of previously existing matter and energy. 

This wording more accurately describes what current scientific knowledge says it means to begin to exist.  Therefore, this rewording renders premise 2 to be, at best, scientifically speculative.  This is because we have virtually no knowledge of what, if anything, existed before the big bang.  Therefore, the reworded form of premise 2 is not a good premise.

KCA Clarified

So, my clarified version of the KCA would look like the following:

1. Whatever is a reformulation of previously existing matter and energy has a natural cause.
2. The universe is a reformulation of previously existing matter and energy.
3. Therefore, the universe has a natural cause.
4. That cause is God.

Points 1-3 very well may be true.  However, premise 2 is highly speculative.  Therefore, point 3 is very weak.  Furthermore, point 4 probably does not logically follow from the previous 3 points, because, by definition, God is not natural.

Conclusion

Therefore, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, at best, not a strong argument for the existence of God.  At worst, it is unsound.