Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?

[William]

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?

There has been ongoing debate on this message board re the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its supposed supporting of the traditional Christian idea of "God" being a "supernatural" being, who exists outside of this universe which it created, (from something which did not exist prior to it being made by said supernatural being re the theory of ex nihilo) and that this being is necessarily uncaused, mindful, immaterial, timeless, and spaceless.

That is why I decided to create this thread to explore possible answers to the OPQ.

I think that in some points the two converge - such as God is causeless, and God is mindful.
The departure appears to be that God is immaterial (since there are many stories within the Christian Tradition which have God appear as a material being) and that God is timeless (in the particular understanding that God is eternal rather than God can and does experience time along with the rest of us here in this universe.)

"God is spaceless" at this point appears to me to have no particular meaning. Other are welcome to say what they think that means to them if they so choose.

Here is a general outline of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause: This premise asserts that things don't just pop into existence without a cause. Objects and events have causes that bring them into being.
2. The universe began to exist: This premise is supported by scientific evidence such as the Big Bang theory, suggesting that the universe had a finite beginning in the past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause: Combining the first two premises, the conclusion is drawn that the universe must have a cause for its existence.
4. The cause must be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial: Since the universe itself had a beginning, its cause must be something beyond the universe and its physical laws. The cause must be uncaused (to avoid infinite regress), timeless (since it caused time), spaceless (since it caused space), and immaterial (since it caused matter).
5. The cause must have a will or intentionality: This follows from the fact that the cause brought the universe into existence at a specific point in time.
6. This cause is what people traditionally call God: The conclusion of the argument is that the cause of the universe possesses attributes that align with the concept of God.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #10]

Depends on what you mean by the question.

1. If you mean the Kalam is one of the supports that should lead one to rationally accept that the Christian idea of God is accurate, then yes it supports it.

2. If you mean the Kalam alone gives us the traditional idea of God, then no it doesn't support it (and no serious Christian philosopher claims it does).

[William]

[Replying to William in post #10]

Depends on what you mean by the question.

1. If you mean the Kalam is one of the supports that should lead one to rationally accept that the Christian idea of God is accurate, then yes it supports it.

2. If you mean the Kalam alone gives us the traditional idea of God, then no it doesn't support it (and no serious Christian philosopher claims it does).

Why would you think the question could mean one or the other? Your answer (2.) even tangents away from the actual question being asked by dropping the "Christian idea of God" altogether.

If you meant to write "the Kalam alone gives us the traditional Christian idea of God, then no it doesn't support it" then that would make the options contradictory.

The Kalam either supports the traditional Christian idea of God, or it does not.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #12]

Yes, I accidentally left off "Christian" in the second option.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #8]

These attributes collectively contribute to the understanding of God within traditional Christian theology. Different Christian denominations may emphasize certain aspects more than others, leading to some variations in the specific theological details of the traditional Christian idea of "God."

Therefore, (re "the attributes of God") one has to expect a variety of answers re traditional Christian theology, which may even appear in contradiction to each other…


Re Monotheism. The belief in one God does not in itself signify that other Gods were not also created by this one God.

Re Omnipotence: The nature of God needs be defined before one can claim the God is all-powerful in relation to the power “consistent with His nature.” Does this mean that the God cannot be all powerful but only powerful regarding what the God is able to do? If so, one cannot (honestly) claim the God is truly Omnipotent.

Re Omniscience: If the God is all-knowing, (possessing complete knowledge of past, present, and future) then this should be evident in the stories of the Bible and there should be nothing therein which hints at a lack of knowing on the Gods part.

Re. Omnipresence: (The traditional Christian concept includes the belief that God is present everywhere simultaneously.) If this were the case, it should be obvious to any observer unless the God could not physically present, which would violate the omnipotence claim (which may not be an honest claim anyway) re the “nature” of said God, if that nature also includes remaining invisible when it suits the God to do so.

Biblical stories have it that the God can show his physical reality – to the very few, who then report their experience to others.

Re Eternal Existence. (God is considered eternal, existing without a beginning or end.) No surprises there given that to believe otherwise begets the problem of infinite regress.

Re Immutability: God is seen as unchanging in His nature, character, and purpose.
None of which are supported by the claims made on the Gods behalf.

Biblically there are incidences where the God can be reasoned with and even encourages such. One could surmise from this, that the nature of the God is changeable. One example is when the God threatened to leave the people (who followed Moses into the desert) to their own devices, and Moses pleading on behalf of the people.

Adding to that, the nature of the God is both a destroyer and a creator. Thus, if the God were truly unchanging, this nature is mirrored within the universe we experience and regard as natural, thus the Cause/God should also be regarded as natural, rather than supernatural.

Re. Creator of the Universe: Christians traditionally believe that God is the creator of the universe and all that exists. They also believe that the God created the universe from substance which did not exist until the substance itself was created.

This assumption allows for the idea that the universe is not within the mind of this particular idea of God (even that omnipotence allows for that to be the case) but exists as a separate entity entirely.
Yet the entire universe appears to reflect the very nature of this God, so why is it a requirement that the universe is created ex nihilo when the evidence better supports that – not only is God a “Mind” but that everything that exists, exists within said mind?

Re Trinitarian Nature: (Many Christian denominations adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, understanding God as Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit.) serves to highlight the argument that the belief in one God does not in itself signify that other Gods were not also created by this one God.

Of course, one argument is that Father Son and Holy Spirit are all aspects of the One Cause/God, which in turn highlights the idea that the universe (everything) exists within the mind which is the Cause and everything is a true and accurate mirror of said Cause/God, (meaning everything that is “the universe”) and therefore the universe itself is an aspect of said Cause/God.

[William]

Exploring Jesus' Teachings: Monotheism, Creation of Other Gods, and the Transformative Journey to Oneness with God.

In Jesus' teachings, there is an implicit invitation for individuals to enter into a transformative relationship within the Godhead, effectively becoming part of the divine narrative. This invitation involves recognizing the oneness of God within the monotheistic framework while emphasizing a personal connection through repentance, faith, and an initial childlike trust in the divine.

The concept of the Kingdom of God, as presented by Jesus, suggests not only a future eschatological fulfillment but a present reality where believers can experience a profound communion with the Godhead.

While the explicit language of becoming part of the Godhead may not be used, the overall message conveys an intimate and participatory relationship, where individuals are invited to join in the divine journey and find their ultimate fulfillment within the boundless grace of the one true God.

However, the idea that individuals can be one with God, as presented in the teachings of Jesus, continues to be a point of theological and philosophical contention. In various religious traditions and secular perspectives, there are diverse views on the nature of divinity, human existence, and the possibility of a deep, personal union with the divine. Some individuals and religious groups embrace the concept of spiritual oneness and union with God, interpreting it as a central aspect of their faith and practice, often aligning with mysticism and certain branches of spirituality.

Conversely, there are those who vehemently oppose or reject such ideas, with opposition arising from doctrinal differences, theological interpretations, or philosophical perspectives that diverge from the concept of individuals being one with God.
This interplay of acceptance and opposition reflects the complexity of theological discussions and the diverse ways in which individuals approach and interpret the profound teachings attributed to Jesus.

The phrase "an initial childlike trust in the divine" refers to the idea that, in Jesus' teachings, individuals are encouraged to approach their relationship with God with a simple and trusting faith, similar to the trust a child has in a loving parent.

This concept is often rooted in Jesus' statements emphasizing the qualities of childlike faith. For example, in Matthew 18:3 (ESV), Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." This indicates that embracing childlike qualities, such as trust, humility, and dependence, is essential in entering into a relationship with God and experiencing the Kingdom.

The notion of childlike trust suggests a pure and unassuming faith, unburdened by skepticism or cynicism. It encourages believers to approach God with openness, simplicity, and a willingness to accept God's guidance and care.

The initial approach does not signify one remains in such a place but rather emphasises the letting go of prior learning in order to enter into said relationship. Yet once the individual has done so, they become strong - not in faith, but in realisation - a realisation that they could not have come to any other way.

This insight captures a profound aspect of spiritual and transformative experiences within the context of Jesus' teachings. The idea that the initial approach involves letting go of prior learning, embracing a childlike trust, and entering into a relationship with the divine reflects the concept of humility and openness.

As individuals embark on this spiritual journey, the emphasis is on surrendering preconceived notions, intellectual barriers, and perhaps the baggage of past experiences. This letting go is a step toward a more authentic and open connection with the divine, marked by trust and receptivity.

The subsequent strength and realization mentioned aligns with the transformative nature of the spiritual journey. As individuals engage in this relationship with the divine, they undergo a process of inner growth, self-discovery, and a profound realization that does not only involve intellectual understanding. This realization often involves a deeper awareness of one's purpose, the nature of existence, and the significance of the divine in one's life.

This spiritual strength and realization are not merely about the increase in faith but represent a shift in understanding and a profound awareness of truths that go beyond conventional knowledge. It is an experiential knowing that, as you suggest, could not have been reached through any other means.

These reflections align well with the spiritual and transformative themes present in many religious and mystical traditions, emphasizing the profound changes that occur when individuals engage sincerely and openly with the divine.


Summary. The insights are integrating the themes of Monotheism, Creation of Other Gods, and the idea of individuals being one with God within the context of Jesus' teachings.

Jesus' implicit invitation is for individuals to enter into a transformative relationship within the Godhead, recognizing the oneness of God and emphasizing a personal connection through repentance, faith, and childlike trust.

The concept of the Kingdom of God suggests a present reality where believers can experience communion with the Godhead. The idea of individuals being one with God remains a point of theological and philosophical contention, with some embracing spiritual oneness and others vehemently opposing or rejecting such ideas.

The initial approach involves a childlike trust, signaling a letting go of prior learning, and as individuals progress, they may experience strength and realization, transcending mere faith and leading to a profound awareness of divine truths.