Michael Shermer on The Kalam cosmological argument

Michael Shermer has engaged with the Kalam cosmological argument in debates and in his writing, and his assessment is characteristically sceptical. He regards the argument as philosophically clever but ultimately question-begging: the premises are carefully constructed to yield the desired conclusion, but each premise, examined independently, is either questionable or does not support the theistic conclusion.

Shermer challenges the first premise — that everything that begins to exist has a cause — by noting that at the quantum level, events appear to occur without causes in the classical sense. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence without deterministic causes, which suggests that our everyday causal intuitions may not apply to the origin of the universe. The second premise — that the universe began to exist — is supported by the Big Bang, but Shermer notes that the Big Bang describes the expansion of an already-existing state, not necessarily an absolute beginning from nothing.

Most importantly, Shermer argues that even if both premises are granted, the conclusion — that the cause is God — does not follow. The Kalam establishes at most that the universe has a cause. It does not establish that the cause is personal, intelligent, moral, or anything else traditionally associated with God. The leap from 'the universe has a cause' to 'that cause is the God of Christianity' requires additional arguments that the Kalam does not provide.