The Kalam cosmological argument is formulated as follows:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The argument uses scientific evidence to come to the conclusion that has theological significance. The real question is whether the two premises are more plausibly true than their denials. Whether or not the universe began to exist is precisely a question that science has tried to answer, and as far as our best scientific evidence goes, the universe began to exist.
Premise 1: “Everything that begins to exist has a cause.”
Premise 1 seems to be obviously true. Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirms our first premise, namely, that if something begins to exist it must have a cause. This is more convincing than its negation. The alternative would essentially be to believe that things could pop into…
View original post 564 more words