This is William Lane Craig's Kalam argument for a personal creator God -

Whatever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
Next argument:

The universe has a cause

If the universe has a cause


A creator of some kind exists.


This creator is without beginning.  It which cannot change for that which changes can begin to change itself but we are saying we don't need it to have a begin of any kind or form.  It is not subject to time.  It is eternal which means it is unchanging and past and present and future do not relate to it. 


 If it is a personal creator then this being spans the universe and is not a material being.

Therefore it is reasonable to suppose that:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who spans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.


This does not claim to prove this kind of creator exists but to show it is sensible to suppose it does.  You can regard it as proven that there was a cause even if you can't say what it is.

The Kalam Argument is no good to science for there is no way to test anything it says to any extent.  Science cannot prove that there was a beginning.  Perhaps one day we will be able to show through science that it all really did have a beginning. But we have to avoid a wait and see attitude for that would lead you to waiting to see something that is proven true proven false.


It is only an argument for belief and not a proof so Craig is not saying it is necessarily true. It could be that God is too big or great to be simply believed in and we need proof. Belief is too much about me and what I think. That is the problem with belief. If there is a God then how do we make it about God? Worshipping the God I believe in and the God that is there is two separate things.
Kalam assumes the universe began to exist. What if something eternal was turned into the universe meaning that the universe in a sense always existed?
It assumes that we know all about logic. We do not. There could be a logical reason we cannot think of why a creator cannot be personal.
It assumes creation is coherent. Creation leaves God unchanged. All that is changed is that where there was not anything at all now there is something. God simply tells it to exist. That is magic. Creation is the worst theory about the origins of all things. Because the terminology is that God made all things from nothing it doesn't seem so bad. But in fact where there is nothing to make from there is no making at all.
It assumes that a timeless God can do things. What if there is some logical reason why he can not? What if there is a logical reason why he cannot make anything other than personal beings? In that case, the existence of stones would refute God. The Christian God expects us to believe there is some logical reason we cannot even guess at why he lets so much innocent suffering happen. The notion then that there are unknown logical reasons for things is not a problem for a believer.
It assumes that the creator is personal which is cheating for even the classical Christian view of God does not give us anything like another person though it is called a person. For example, God knows all things past and present and future so he cannot be surprised or have a sense of humour. That is nothing we can relate to. It is not a person in any way that can appeal to us.
If you have a choice, what will you go for? The personality of God or his power to create? The personality if you value love and feel God is a loving being. A person loving you is more important than a person looking after your interests mechanically without love. The creator thing will matter to you if you just care about existing and what you are going to get out of the creator. How do these principles affect the kalam? If you want love then it does not matter that God is God but all that matters is that there is a loving person there. God being God does not matter. To say he does not matter is to contradict the definition of God which is a being that matters totally and ultimately. The creator thing would
God is that which alone matters. But if you had a choice and it had to be one or the other, would you save a dying baby for his own sake or for God's? If you are human it will be about the baby. This is the easiest way to prove that even if there is a creator he cannot be God to you. Proving a creator and proving God then is not the same thing.
And it assumes that there is one creator. Craig says if you use Occam's Razor one God would do. You don't need to wonder if there is a pile of Gods when one would explain. But there is more to it trying to explain the origin of the universe. People have other concerns as well that call for explanation which means that there is no reason why everybody has to accept that the Razor decrees there is one God. Maybe the truth is that two God's exist.  What if God exists and some being we cannot call a God rivals him but has as much power but is not like a person at all?


The moral argument for God supposes that we need to believe in God or we need there to be a God to validate moral concepts such as justice and love. Kalam refutes moral arguments for it gives rise to deliberate lies.  This conflict shows that if there is a God then it is not a God who is morally interesting.




1 Time travel is impossible for you cannot go back in time to kill your father when he was a baby


2  But if the universe lets you go back to meet him but stops you killing him there is no contradiction


3  Cause is full of paradoxes and mystery


Therefore we should avoid attempts to use God as an explanation for being the start of the universe for we are stuck with saying, its paradoxes and mystery so we don't know what we are talking about
A HISTORY OF GOD, Karen Armstrong, Mandarin, London, 1994
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image, New York, 1964
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A SUMMARY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, Louis Berkhof, The Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971
AN INTELLIGENT PERSONS GUIDE TO CATHOLICISM, Alban McCoy, Continuum, London and New York, 1997
APOLOGETICS AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Part 1, Most Rev M Sheehan DD, MH Gill, & Son, Dublin, 1954
APOLOGETICS FOR THE PULPIT, Aloysius Roche, Burns Oates & Washbourne LTD, London, 1950
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
ARGUING WITH GOD, Hugh Sylvester, IVP, London, 1971
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS, Various, Oxford University Press, London, 1936
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath, Wolfhound Press, Dublin, 1995
CONTROVERSY: THE HUMANIST CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTER, Hector Hawton, Pemberton Books, London, 1971
CRITIQUES OF GOD, Edited by Peter A Angeles, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995
DIALOGUES CONCERNING NATURAL RELIGION, David Hume, William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1907
DOES GOD EXIST? Brian Davies OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1982
DOES GOD EXIST? Herbert W Armstrong, Worldwide Church of God, Pasadena, California, 1972
DOING AWAY WITH GOD? Russell Stannard, Marshall Pickering, London, 1993
GOD AND PHILOSOPHY, Antony Flew, Hutchinson, London, 1966
GOD AND THE HUMAN CONDITION, F J Sheed, Sheed & Ward, London 1967
GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS, Paul Davies, Penguin Books, London, 1990
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
GOD THE PROBLEM, Gordon D Kaufman, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1973
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 2, Frederick Copleston SJ Westminster, Maryland, Newman, 1962
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM Press, London, 1963
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene Oregon, 1996
IN SEARCH OF CERTAINTY, John Guest Regal Books, Ventura, California, 1983
JESUS HYPOTHESES, V. Messori, St Paul Publications, Slough, 1977
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
ON THE TRUTH OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BOOK ONE, GOD, St Thomas Aquinas, Image Doubleday and Co, New York, 1961
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 1, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 2, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, Vol 3, Frs Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND RELIGION, Anthony Kenny, Basil Blackwell Ltd, Oxford, 1987
SALVIFICI DOLORIS, Pope John Paul II, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1984
TAKING LEAVE OF GOD, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1980
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007
THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Gerald Priestland, Collins, Fount Paperbacks, London, 1984
THE CONCEPT OF GOD, Ronald H Nash, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1983
The Future of Atheism, Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett, SPCK, London , 2008
THE HONEST TO GOD DEBATE Edited by David L Edwards, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963
THE KINDNESS OF GOD, EJ Cuskelly MSC, Mercier Press, Cork, 1965
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL, Brian Davies, Continuum, London-New York, 2006
THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BELIEF, Charles Gore DD, John Murray, London, 1930
THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, WH Turton, Wells Gardner, Darton & Co Ltd, London, 1905
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982
WHAT DO EXISTENTIALISTS BELIEVE? Richard Appignanesi, Granta Books, London, 2006
WHAT IS FAITH? Anthony Kenny, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992
WHY DOES GOD? Domenico Grasso, St Paul, Bucks, 1970

No Copyright