The Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Big Bang has been greatly mischaracterized as an atheist explanation for how the universe begin. Unfortunately, in most people’s minds, the phrase is synonymous with natural scientific explanations for the origin of the cosmos, disputing the creation account of the Bible. This is based on both a lack of understanding of the theory’s true history as well as years of secularist indoctrination, especially in public schools. The more I research history, the more I find instances where atheists have either lied about it or seized credit for something they were originally opposed to until it became indisputable. I’ve written more extensively about this topic in previous blogs (click here or here) but to sum it up briefly: the “Big Bang theory” (as it was later to called) was first proposed by a Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer, Georges LeMaitres, two years before Edwin Hubble observed that the galaxies are moving apart, originally as a god proposal. Over time, more proof has been observed solidifying the Big Bang as the origin of our universe, in cosmic background radiation (discovered by Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias in 1965). The abundance of helium in the universe, which requires a much hotter furnace than exploding stars are able to produce, has also lent strong support.

The reason this was so groundbreaking is because before the Big Bang model, atheists assumed that the universe was eternally pre-existent and motionless. Charles Darwin and Bertrand Russell both labored under this concept. But the discovery that it not only has a cause, but is in a state of rapid expansion proved otherwise. But did theists rejoice while atheists had to backpedal?

Noted Christian apologist William Lane Craig, research professor at Talbot School of Theology, member of nine professional societies on philosophy and science, and author of dozens of books on cosmology, first applied the ancient kalam argument to the Big Bang model. While “kalam” is a Muslim word, its origins are in early Christianity. It seems to have been an attempt to refute the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who didn’t believe that God created the universe so much as imbued order into it. This contradicts the Judeo-Christian concept of a Creator of everything out of nothing; one avid proponent was fourth century Christian theologian John Philoponus, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt.

When Islam took over North Africa, Muslim philosophers picked up on the proposal. Medieval Islam continued developing it over the centuries, its most famous supporter being al-Ghazali (1058-1111). Ghazali formulated three steps to the kalam argument: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Al-Ghazali didn’t have the advantage of knowing about the Big Bang, which would have made his job a lot easier. At the time, the kalam principle was to dispute the eternal pre-existence of the universe, which stood as the dividing line between believers and nonbelievers. According to theists, the universe could not possibly have an infinite past, because “infinity” by definition means having no beginning or end. Since each day exists as a stopping point (the universe has existed until today), going far enough back in time will eventually lead you to a first day. And if the universe has a beginning, it has to have a cause.

After graduating in 1971, Craig (who I personally think is the smartest Christian in the world) studied Stuart Hackett’s 1957 book, Resurrecting Theism, and realized the kalam argument could be used to examine the Big Bang, which has forever solidified that al-Ghalazi and John Philoponus were right about the universe’s starting point. Cosmologists are now able to rewind the “universal clock” back until all the stars, planets, and galaxies condense down to a tiny ball of energy. But when we ask what existed beforehand, and especially what caused it to explode, we’re dealing with a religious question as much as a scientific one.

Essentially, time, space, matter and the laws of physics didn’t exist until after the Big Bang. We can even point to the exact number of parsecs (extremely tiny measurements of time, trillionths of a second each) when each of these started to exist. Therefore, we can apply philosophical principles to the cause and deduce that it is 1. Not bound by time (and by definition, eternally pre-existing). 2. Not bound by space or the laws of physics. And 3. Not composed of matter (immaterial). Furthermore, the amount of energy needed to explode matter and propel all the universe into existence in every direction is unimaginable, making the cause immensely powerful. Now we have a well-defined definition of God, the consciousness beyond the universe that caused it to come into existence.

We could expand that definition more by examining further traits of the Cause, such as the fine-tuning of the universe (the teleological principle), the stacks of miracles on top of miracles to make the earth suitable for life (the anthropic principle), or the still-unsolved mystery of the origin of life itself. But for the sake of time and space (no pun intended), let’s stay focused on the kalam argument.

One of the most common (and dumbest), atheist arguments against God is that people believe in other gods. What they’re trying to get across is that if you believe in the God of the Bible, what makes you right and other religions wrong? Why does the Judeo Christian God exist, but not Zeus? Or Marduk? Or any other Bronze Age deity? This is usually accompanied with typical condescending scoffing and mockery.

Upon close examination, it’s obvious what a weak philosophical premise this is, the presupposition being that if people believe in different gods, there must be no God at all. This is such a gigantic conclusion to jump to, you’ll break every bone upon impact! Based on that logic, while scientists say there is good reason to believe the earth is round, the fact that some people believe the earth is flat proves that the planet must have no shape at all. It’s ridiculous reasoning!

But it’s also based on a complete lack of understanding. The kalam argument is sometimes also known as the “First Cause” philosophy, mainly because while its specific formula was predominant among Medieval Muslims, the basic principle underlies all religious belief.

While skeptics laugh at the fact that so many different religions have wildly different gods, they are blind to the similarities. The underlying idea of a supreme ruler who dominates all other deities is common across faiths. In Greece, Zeus may have been king, but all the secondary gods were merely lesser manifestations of him. Even the Titans were manifestations of Zeus backwards in a pre-existant form. In Hinduism, the Brahman (from which all the millions of lesser gods emerge). In Egypt, it was Atum. What makes Judaism, Christianity and Islam different is the application of Ockham’s razor to distill the concept to its bare minimum requirements; the first cause doesn’t dwell in idols and doesn’t need lesser manifestations.

Before my Christian readers crucify me for saying that Allah, Zeus, and Atum are all God, let me clarify. The purpose of this blog is not exactly to argue for the truth of Christianity (I have plenty of others for that), but for theism in general. The universality of an eternally pre-existing God is evidence of the first cause philosophy in action throughout time. It stems from the logical conclusion that everything must have come from something.

This is so pernicious that even the great philosopher Socrates expressed a similar reason to believe in the divine. While Socrates produced no writings himself, his discussion with Aristodemus on the topic was recorded by the historian Xenophon: “There is nothing then but your understanding alone, which, by a wonderful piece of good fortune, must have come to you from I know not whence, if there were none in another place; and can it then be said that all this universe and al these so vast and numerous bodies have been disposed in so much order, without the help of an intelligent Being, and by mere chance?”

Ironically, Socrates would be put to death for “impiety” (not believing in any gods, though this was probably a set-up by his enemies). But this phenomenon left such an impression that some 300 years later, Paul encountered it in Athens: For as I (Paul) passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you (Acts17:23). While theism is the natural inclination of the mind, most are ignorant of how to worship Him so idolatry in the form of statues starts arising in a misguided attempt to figure Him out. Paul saw this himself and seized the opportunity.

The First Cause philosophy is so prevalent across mankind, remote native tribes Africa (some dating as far back as 8,000 years) have been some of the easiest converts to Christianity. They already have an established religious culture with a supreme deity so when missionaries first meet them, all the missionaries have to do is explain is that the one true God has a Son and the message falls into place. This should tell us all something profound; the concept of God is written on the hearts of men for a reason.

Sources:

-Strobel, Lee. The Case for a Creator. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 2004, pages 96-104.

-Geisler, Norman and Turek, Frank. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL, 2004, pages 81-82.

-Warner, J. Wallace. God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. David C Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, 2015, pages 35-36.

-Xenophon. The Memorable Thoughts of Socrates. Transcribed from the 1889 Cassell and Company edition by David Price. Translated by Edward Bysshe. Cassel & Company, 1888. Chapter IV: “Socrates Proveth the Existence of a Deity.”

You can also subscribe by entering your email in the subscription box on the home page, read all my past blogs on the Archives page, or follow me on:

Twitter: @DepthsPentecost

YouTube: Depths of Pentecost

Thanks for reading/watching, and God bless!

2 IN THE BEGINNING…
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen 1:1-2)

2.1 THE LAWS OF FORM AND THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE
If you speak English, you have heard the first two sentences in the Book of Genesis. You may or may not have wondered what they really mean, but you probably never thought that they were mathematical statements. There has been much commentary on exactly what “the earth was without form, and void” means, but it is our contention that, in and around 1968, George Spenser-Brown (GSB) when he wrote, “Call the space cloven by any distinction, together with the entire contents of the space, the form of the distinction.” So a space without a distinction is formless and void.

The simplest distinction that can be drawn is a circle on a plane. In Proverbs 8:22, Wisdom describes how the CoTU did this, “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth.” In this context, a compass is an instrument for drawing a circle. Some translations render this as “when he drew a circle on the deep.”

As we will outline, Forms leads directly to three kinds of numbers: Real Integers, Imaginary Integers, and Complementary Integers. This leads inexorably to all of mathematics, number theory, and computer science. It, however requires something on which to write or mark. Is there a theory that starts the same way a Forms, but results in the physical universe?

Here is what I wrote today:

Burkhard Heim arrived at a description of “the beginning” from the currently observed universe using logic and mathematics. Heim defined the fundamental quantum of area which he called a “metron”. While he presented this quantization of area as a postulate, but we now know from Forms that it is a consequence of the creation of the first distinction.

Heim derived an equation for the relationship of the size of the universe and the size of the metron over time. As time passed, the metron got smaller and the universe go bigger. It is important to note that this turned out to be an equation of the seventh degree. It had seven roots at time zero, i.e., in the beginning. Three of these roots are positive, three are negative and one is complex. The three positive roots specify the creation event as producing three concentric spheres with diameters of 0.90992 m, 1.06426 m, 3.70121 m. that separate “the creation” from the nothingness.

Since a compass draws a circle by fixing the center and drawing the radius, we can say that the CotU adjusted the size of His compass to: 19.646 inches, 20.945 inches, and 72.874 inches. These surely are the “heavens and the earth” spoken of in Genesis 1:1. As we will see, Forms requires the creation of the first distinction, and then everything else is done within that form. So the CotU created the “highest” heaven, then drew the “lower” heaven, and finally drew the earth. These were all done at the same “time” since until they were finished being drawn, time had no meaning.

These measurements would also appear to be the first natural measurements of length the “cubit”. There are two kinds of cubits, a shorter secular cubit and a longer sacred cubit. Scholars give a range of values for the length of the cubits, but the remains of buildings in Babylonia and Assyria indicate a sacred cubit of about 20.6 inches. The historical record for the secular cubit put it between 16 and 18 inches. (https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/cubit/) However, given the number of times in the Bible that the CotU complains about people using corrupted measurements, this is probably to be expected, while they would be more reluctant to adulterate the sacred measurement.

Another interesting part of the “cubit” story is that the name in English is pronounced exactly the same as the recently added word: “qubit” which labels the unit of quantum information. As we will see, Forms is a “quantum theory” in every sense of the words. The first distinction can be thought of as the first qubit. Having the English name for the first measurement and the English name for the qubit being pronounced the same is our first indication that the CotU loves puns and other word play.

How is this possible for these two “random” events to be related, you ask? Because: “ISA46:09 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, ISA46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:” is a scientific statement. The “random events” of translating אמה into “cubit” and calling a quantum bit a “qubit” were determined from the beginning and formed some of the “boundary conditions” for the “evolution” of the universe.

Before going on it is important to note that while Forms is a mathematical system and described in abstract symbols, it is always accompanied by words, phrases and sentences that describe the meaning of the symbols. One could put it as John did at the beginning of his Gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

Putting it all together, we could say, as it does in the Sefer Yetzirah (ספר יצירה), “And He created His universe with three books (Sepharim ספרדים), with text (Sepher ספר) with number (Sephar ספר) and with communication (Sippur סיפור).

We now know three important numbers: two (2) three (3) and seven (7): two dimensions of the simplest space; three kinds of numbers, three dimensions for free motion, three spheres, three circles, three books; and seven as the order of the equation of the universe which led to the three spheres.

You've made an excellent decision in adding Hugh Ross's books to your reading list. Since he is new to you, and I'm an insider of sorts, I can fill you in on his backstory.

Hugh was a postgraduate astronomer at CalTech when he heard the Spirit's call to leave astronomy for Christian ministry. He became Minister of Evangelism at Sierra Madre [CA] Congregational Church (where I met and got to know him well). Soon he started an adult Sunday School class, Paradoxes in Scripture, which is now in its fifth decade.

In the mid-80s the Spirit moved again and Hugh and his wife Kathy started Reasons to Believe in order to demonstrate the true congruity of proper science and faith. Since then he has written seventeen books, including those you mentioned; I've read them all, to my very great benefit.

Finally, as to Hugh's rightful place. He shows, rationally and brilliantly with the mind of the trained scientist and careful Bible scholar, and patiently and generously with the heart of the experienced pastor, how to reconcile God’s two revelations, the physical and the scriptural. In doing so Dr. Ross has become, in my opinion, the most important scientist ever, for he has drawn back the curtain at long last on the studiously-unappreciated purpose, plan and details of the Creator’s work. As Isaac Newton was unique, because “there is only one universe to discover,” so is Hugh Ross, for there is only one universe’s biblical congruity and ultimate meaning to demonstrate—only one universe to explain.

I had to re-read this a few times to understand it (math wasn't my best subject in school--I'm more of a history guy). But I think I get the jist of what you're saying. So please excuse my amateurish observations/questions.

The circle and compass comparison is interesting because in the ancient Near East (where the Bible came from), most civilizations thought the planet was a large, flat disk with hades or hell underneath and a dome-shaped sky overhead. Now there's a lot of back-and-forth about the scientific accuracy of Genesis (not sure where you stand on the 7 days of creation), whether it's to be taken literally or figuratively, or the degree to which it was influenced by the surrounding cultures (I believe in Mosaic authorship rather than the common orthodox view that it's a product of the exilic-period Jews).

I'm personally not a Young Earth Creationist, although I'm unsure which Old Earth narrative is accurate; Day Age, the Genesis Gap doctrine (that Genesis 1:2 starts a new world after the destruction of the old), or the orthodox view that the first chapters of Genesis are poetic and not literal (I have the hardest time accepting that one).

I see your point that symbolism is of critical importance in understanding the Bible, and doesn't take away from its historicity in any way...

Here is a revision to the last paragraph posted, and today, so far:

We now know four (4 ד) important numbers: one (1 א), two (2 ב), three (3 כ), and seven (7 ז): One CotU and complex solution to the creation equation; two dimensions of the simplest dividable finite space; three kinds of numbers, three dimensions for free motion, three spheres, three circles, three books; and seven as the order of the equation of the universe which led to the three spheres.

2.1.2 When the Universe Started

The calculations in Heim EQFT that produced the size of the initial universe also tell us how long ago this happened: 5.45 x 10107 years ago. During all but the past 15-40 x 109 years the metronic lattice did not contain light or matter. As the Torah says: “darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

This means that for about 1098 years the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters, i.e. all of creation, up until the point some 15-40 billion years ago when God said “let there be light.” What was the Spirit of God up to during all this time? He was setting things up or, if you will, writing the Book.

ISA46:09 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, ISA46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

We are going to see that the universe is like a humongous computer operated using object-oriented programming (OOP). In OOP, there is a declaration phase of development where the characteristics and properties of types (or classes) of “objects” are defined. As we will see, the Bible calls these “kinds” as in “after its kind”.

After the declaration phase of OOP, comes the execution phase in which the object classes are instantiated into executing units within the program of the computer. This two phase process of creation process avoids the “which came first? The chicken or the egg?” problem inherent in the Theory of (accidental) Evolution.

This also explains why there are two creation stories in Genesis. The first describes the creation of the universe out of nothing from the beginning and the declaration of the objects. This is indicated by these verses between the two stories:

GEN2:04 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, GEN2:05 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Now that we have discovered OOP, we know about the two phases of creation: declaration and execution, we can understand this passage as the demarcation between the two. It also states explicitly that the was all done in a single “day”, which gives us a big clue that “day” is not tied to the movements of the Earth around the Sun, but it is a cycle of time marked out as “an evening” and “a morning”.

This concept is supported by the writings of the Hebrew sages, without invoking OOP:

“According to the master Kabbalists, Rabbi Isaac of Acco, when counting the years of these [7000 year] cycles, one must not use an ordinary physical year, but rather, a divine year. The Midrash says that each divine day is a thousand years, basing this on the verse, “A thousand years in Your sight are as but yesterday” (Psalms 90: 4). Since each year contains 365 1/4 days, a divine year would be 365,250 years long. According to this, each cycle of seven thousand divine years would consist of 2,556,750,000 earthly years. This figure of two-and-a-half billion years is very close to the scientific estimate as to the length of time that life has existed on earth. If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation, then this would have occurred when the universe was 15,340,500,000 years old. This is very close to the scientific estimate that the expansion of the universe began some fifteen billion years ago.”

Kaplan, Aryeh (2004-03-15). Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation in Theory and Practice (Kindle Locations 3552-3559). Red Wheel Weiser. Kindle Edition.

‘During the six days of creation described in the first chapter, G-d did not actually create the world, but rather, created the ingredients which would allow the world to develop. It thus refers to the creation of all matter, along with space and time. It was during these six days that G-d brought the universe into being from absolute nothingness. After these six days of creation, G-d allowed the universe to develop by itself, renewing His creation each seven thousand divine years or 2.5 billion earthly years. All the laws of nature and the properties of matter had been fixed for all time, as it is written, “He has established them forever; He has made a decree which shall not be transgressed” (Psalms 148: 6). It is similarly written, “Whatever G-d decrees shall be forever; nothing shall be added to it, and nothing shall be taken away” (Ecclesiastes 3: 14). ‘

Kaplan, Aryeh (2004-03-15). Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation in Theory and Practice (Kindle Locations 3564-3572). Red Wheel Weiser. Kindle Edition.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.