Skip to content

Course 14 · Lesson 4.2

The modern argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause

10 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 14 outline

Module 1: Arguments, Existence and Necessity

  1. What natural theology attempts and what it does not
  2. Necessary and contingent existence
  3. How to read and test an argument for God
  4. Philosophy of religion today: a map of the field

Module 2: The Ontological Argument

  1. Anselm and the argument of the Proslogion
  2. Gaunilo and the perfect island objection
  3. Kant: existence is not a real predicate
  4. What the ontological argument would show if it worked

Module 3: Cosmological Arguments

  1. Aquinas: the first three ways
  2. Infinite regress: what is the problem?
  3. Leibniz, the principle of sufficient reason and the argument from contingency
  4. Objections: the brute fact reply and the fallacy of composition

Module 4: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  1. The kalam tradition: Philoponus, al-Ghazali and Bonaventure
  2. The modern argument: whatever begins to exist has a cause
  3. Did the universe begin? Philosophy and cosmology
  4. Objections and replies, and what follows about the cause

Module 5: Teleological and Fine-Tuning Arguments

  1. From Aquinas’s fifth way to Paley’s watch
  2. Hume and the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion
  3. Darwin and the change in the design argument
  4. The fine-tuning argument: what is claimed and what is debated
  5. The multiverse and other replies

Module 6: The Moral Argument and Divine Hiddenness

  1. The moral argument: Kant, Lewis and contemporary forms
  2. The Euthyphro question and moral realism without God
  3. Evolution and moral knowledge
  4. The argument from divine hiddenness and Christian replies

Module 7: Contemporary Modal Arguments and Evaluation

  1. Possible worlds and modal logic in plain language
  2. Plantinga’s modal ontological argument
  3. Assessing the modal argument: what it needs and what it shows
  4. Weighing the arguments together, and what none of them prove

All courses

Program / Course 14: Arguments for the Existence of God / Lesson 4.2

What you will learn

  • State the modern kalam argument in its three-line form.
  • Explain the support offered for the first premise, the causal principle.
  • Describe the objections to the first premise, including those from physics.
  • Distinguish the causal principle from the principle of sufficient reason.

The big idea

The modern kalam argument, defended by William Lane Craig, has three lines: whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. This lesson examines the first line. Defenders say it rests on the intuition that things do not pop into being from nothing, and on all experience. Critics say the intuition may not apply to the origin of the universe and that quantum physics may offer exceptions.

Key terms

Causal principle
The claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Begins to exist
In this argument, comes into being at some time after not existing. It is said of things, not of the whole of time.
Ex nihilo nihil fit
A Latin saying, from the Greek philosophers, meaning from nothing, nothing comes.
Quantum vacuum fluctuation
A brief change of energy in a quantum field. Some popular accounts describe this as particles appearing from nothing.
Material cause
The stuff out of which a thing is made. Craig’s argument says the universe has a cause but that this need not be its material cause.
Metaphysical principle
A claim about the basic nature of reality, which is supported by reasoning and experience, not by an experiment.
Inductive support
Support for a general claim from many observed cases.

Background

William Lane Craig, an American philosopher and Christian apologist, revived the argument in the 1970s and has defended it ever since. His standard form is: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. He then argues, in a further step, that this cause is uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful and personal.

The argument differs from Aquinas’s ways. It is about a beginning in time, whereas the Five Ways are not. It also differs from the argument from contingency, since it does not require the strong principle of sufficient reason. It requires only that things which begin have causes. Defenders think this is easier to accept.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The first premise

The first premise says that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It is a general claim about things that come to be, such as trees, stars and persons. Craig defends it on three grounds. First, it is a metaphysical principle: to say a thing came into being from nothing and for no reason seems absurd. Second, it is confirmed by experience, which shows no case of an uncaused beginning. Third, if things could pop into existence uncaused, it is hard to explain why this does not happen all the time.

Step 2: The point about nothing

Nothing has no properties and no powers. So it cannot have a power to bring things into being, and it cannot have a tendency not to produce horses and mountains. If something could come from nothing, nothing would explain why only some things appear and not others. This is the thought behind the old saying that from nothing, nothing comes.

Step 3: The objection from experience

Critics reply that experience is of things within the universe, which are already in a causal order. It does not follow that the same principle governs the origin of the universe. David Hume made a related point: he held that the mind sees no contradiction in a thing beginning without a cause, and the causal principle is a habit, not a necessity. Defenders reply that being unable to see a contradiction is not the same as being possible, and that the principle is far better supported than its denial.

Step 4: The objection from physics

Some physicists and philosophers say that in quantum physics, certain events, such as the decay of an atom or the appearance of virtual particles, happen without a cause. If so, the principle fails for things at that level. Defenders answer that these events happen within a pre-existing quantum vacuum, which is a field of energy and not nothing, and that on many interpretations the events have causes of a probabilistic kind. They also note that the popular phrase universe from nothing, used by physicist Lawrence Krauss, uses nothing in the sense of a quantum state, which is not the philosophers’ nothing.

Critics reply that the status of such events is disputed, and that the burden of proof is on those who insist on causes where physics does not show them.

Step 5: A narrower version

Some defenders reply that they need a weaker principle: that whatever begins to exist has a cause, if it is the sort of thing that exists in the universe. Critics say this weaker form leaves the universe itself outside, which is exactly the case in question. The disagreement about how to extend a principle beyond its tested range is at the center of the debate.

  1. Does it seem absurd to you that something could come from nothing?
  2. Is that feeling a good guide to what is possible?
  3. What does it mean to say nothing has no tendencies or powers?
  4. Does experience of ordinary causes tell anyone anything about the universe as a whole?
  5. Is the causal principle weaker or stronger than the principle of sufficient reason?
  6. What would physics need to show to count against the principle?

Examples

The elephant on the table

If you came home and found an elephant standing in your kitchen, you would not accept that it had come to be there for no reason. Defenders say this ordinary reaction expresses a principle most people hold. Critics reply that the case concerns of a thing appearing in a world already full of causes. (A common illustration.)

Radioactive decay

A single atom of an unstable element decays at some moment, and physics predicts only the probability of it. Some say the decay has no cause. Others say the cause is the nature of the atom together with the quantum laws. This is a standard case in the debate over whether the principle holds at the quantum level.

Universe from nothing

Lawrence Krauss’s popular book A Universe from Nothing (2012) argued that physics can describe how a universe arises from a quantum vacuum. Philosophers, including David Albert in a review, replied that a vacuum with fields and laws is not nothing, so the book does not address the philosophical question.

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic thinkers accept that God creates from nothing, and many hold that causal reasoning can lead to God. Thomists prefer the Five Ways to the kalam form, since the Ways do not depend on the world having a beginning, but they do not dispute the causal principle itself.

Orthodox

Orthodox theology teaches creation out of nothing and holds the causal dependence of the world on God. It places little weight on the argument as a proof, but its theologians generally welcome any reasoning that supports creation.

Protestant

Evangelical philosophers like Craig and James Sinclair defend the argument. Reformed thinkers such as Plantinga value it as one reasonable piece of evidence, while denying that belief in God depends on it. Some Protestants worry about relying on scientific cosmology that may change.

Scholarly views

Some physicists, such as Sean Carroll, hold that the question what caused the universe may not apply, if time itself began with the universe. Others, such as Alexander Vilenkin, a cosmologist, think that the problem is worth discussion. There is no scientific consensus on the question.

Skeptical views

Skeptics such as Oppy argue that the first premise is justified only for ordinary things and is unsupported for the whole universe. They also argue that the notion of a cause of time itself is obscure.

Why it matters

The first premise looks easy and turns out to depend on subtle questions about causes, nothing and physics. Studying it shows how an apparently obvious principle can be tested, and how arguments must be adjusted when science enters the discussion.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The first premise says everything has a cause, including God.

Correction: It says only that whatever begins to exist has a cause. God, on this view, did not begin, so the premise does not apply.

Misunderstanding: Quantum physics has shown that things come from nothing.

Correction: It describes events within quantum fields, and its interpretation is debated. Most philosophers hold that a quantum vacuum is not nothing.

Misunderstanding: The causal principle is a law of physics.

Correction: It is a metaphysical principle supported by reasoning and experience. Its application to the origin of the universe is the open question.

Misunderstanding: To doubt the first premise is to deny reason.

Correction: Many careful philosophers doubt it for the universe’s origin. They do not hold that things come from nothing in ordinary life.

Knowledge check

State the modern kalam argument.

It runs: whatever begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore the universe has a cause. It is defended by William Lane Craig and others. Further steps argue that this cause is uncaused, timeless, immaterial and personal. The argument has the merit of being short, and its premises can each be examined.

What support is given for the first premise?

Defenders say it is a metaphysical principle, that nothing has no powers and cannot produce anything, that experience shows no uncaused beginnings, and that if things could begin uncaused, it is puzzling why they do not appear constantly. They treat it as better supported than its denial.

How do critics use quantum physics against it?

They point to events like radioactive decay or virtual particles that appear to occur without a determining cause. Defenders reply that these events occur within a quantum field that already exists, so they do not come from nothing, and that interpretations of quantum physics are disputed. The question of whether physics supports the objection remains open.

How does this argument differ from the argument from contingency?

The kalam argument needs only that things which begin to exist have causes, and that the universe began. The argument from contingency needs a stronger principle, that contingent facts have explanations, and does not need a beginning. Defenders of the kalam consider its premise more modest and thus easier to accept.

Think it through

  1. Is your acceptance of the causal principle a matter of reason, habit, or both?
  2. Would it matter to you if physics showed that some events lack causes?
  3. Why might Hume’s point about conceivability be convincing or not?
  4. What is the difference between nothing and an empty space?

Independent assignment

Defending and doubting the first premise

In your own notebook, write 350 to 500 words. Write one paragraph defending the claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and one paragraph doubting it, each in a form its holders would accept. Then write what you think the strongest consideration on each side is, and say whether the first premise seems more or less certain than the second. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study