The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be traced to Muslim philosophers, for example, al-Kindiandal –Ghazali. This argument seeks to explain the existence of the universe which is seen to be directly linked to the existence of a higher being –God. According to this argument, the universe has a time when it began that needs to be explained.
According to William Lane Craig, who has recently brought the Kalam Cosmological Argument to life by making it popular, he sees it as having a formula which is as follows; “everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence and finally since no technical clarification in terms of corporeal laws can present an unfussy account of the derivation of creation, the root must be personal that is explanation is given in terms of a personal agent” (Craig 45).
The first premises argument ‘everything, that begins to, exist has a cause for its existence’ has its basis in the causal principle. Craig sees this principle as obvious as no one can honestly deny it, since nothing simply exists; it has to have an origin. However, this principle has been subject to a lot of criticism since its application is virtually inapplicable, if at all it has any application. In order to support this premise, there is needed to prove that the past is not infinite. Thus, it has a definite starting point which has been rather difficult to do so.
For the second premise, if, for instance, the universe had always existed, that is, if the universe was infinite, and it cannot be proven otherwise, then the premise comes under scrutiny. Those in support of this premise often rely on the big bang theory whereby they claim that the universe began with the big bang.
Using mathematical and scientific arguments, those in support of the Kalam Cosmological Argument see it this way. First, they argue that real infinities cannot exist. Thus, in support of the non-existence of an actual or real infinite, they use a mathematical argument. This argument suggests that the universe has a beginning using the assumption that logical contradictions are as a result of the existence of an endless or infinite number of anything. Since there can never be an endless number of anything, for example, an infinite number of pasts, then the universe must have had a certain time when it came into existence.
To answer why the proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument think that there cannot be an infinite number of anything, they look at two types of infinities. The first ones are referred to as potential infinities, which can exist, and, in fact, do exist, but they are purely conceptual. The second ones are known as actual infinities, which are impossible to exist.
If the past is infinite, then a paradox arises since if, for instance, numbers were to be assigned to particular past moments, then it would be found out that real numbers cannot be assigned to a moment as it passes from the present to the past. Thus, the universe must have had a starting point since the past cannot be infinities.
Since the past has grown and keeps growing through successive addition as moments turn from the future into the present which in turn becomes the past, then the past cannot be an actual infinity. The past must have had a beginning as it has been created through successive additions, which, by the way, according to the proponents of this Kalam Cosmological Argument cannot create actual finites.
Finally, according to the proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the universe must have had a beginning since it is impossible to transverse actual infinities. So if, for instance, he passed was infinities, the present would never arrive, we would be stuck in the past forever. The truth is we are in the present, so the past is finite.
The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has come under the fire of critics in that quantum mechanism, as scientists have discovered, that particles of energy may come into being in space with no apparent cause. Thus, there is still a probability that the universe might have come into being spontaneously, and has no cause for its existence (Miller, Vendome & McBrewster 89).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument proponents support that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning was God. Then they go ahead to use the big bang theory as their evidence that the universe had a beginning when the big bang happened. This assumption does leave unanswered questions as who is the cause of that beginning God or the big bang. This is a fallacy on their part unless there is agreement that both God and the big bang are the cause of the universe. Otherwise, it beats logic.
Should the Kalam Cosmological Argument suggest that the universe has its beginning in God; thus, proving the existence of God, and then probably the proponents of this argument should do so from the creation point of view where it is believed that in the beginning there was nothing. Then out of that nothingness, God commanded and from that time forth the universe as we know it today came into being. No matter what point of view, the proponents of this argument, it is clear from the above discussion that this point of view has its gaps, nonetheless.