The Kalām Cosmological Argument | AQA A-Level Philosophy
For Specification 7172
AQA A-Level Philosophy | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 35 minutes
The Kalām Cosmological Argument A-Level Philosophy revision examines an argument from the temporal beginning of the universe to a first cause. It depends on temporal causation, where causes occur before their effects, and on the causal principle that things which begin to exist have causes. If the universe began to exist, the argument concludes that its beginning requires a cause that is itself uncaused. AQA identifies this first cause with God, but careful evaluation must consider both the argument's deductive structure and exactly how much its conclusion establishes.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define temporal causation and distinguish it from other forms of causation.
Explain the causal principle used by the Kalām argument.
Reconstruct the Kalām cosmological argument in a clear deductive form.
Explain the move from the temporal beginning of the universe to a first cause.
Explain why the first cause is presented as uncaused.
Evaluate whether the argument's premises support its conclusion and what conception of God that conclusion establishes.
Revision Notes 📚
What is a cosmological argument?
A cosmological argument reasons from some feature of the universe or of things within it towards an explanation or cause ultimately identified with God.
AQA specifies several different cosmological arguments:
the Kalām argument, from temporal causation
Aquinas' First Way, from change
Aquinas' Second Way, from atemporal causation
Aquinas' Third Way, from contingency
Descartes' argument from his continuing existence
Leibniz's argument from the principle of sufficient reason.
These arguments should not be collapsed into one generic "everything has a cause" argument.
The Kalām is distinctive because its starting point is:
the universe has a temporal beginning.
What is the Kalām argument?
The Kalām argument is a cosmological argument with roots in Islamic philosophy.
Its central movement is:
the universe began to exist
therefore:
the beginning of the universe requires a cause
therefore:
there must be a first cause of the universe's beginning
AQA presents this first cause as:
an uncaused first cause, identified with God.
The argument is therefore specifically concerned with how the universe began, rather than what continually sustains the universe now.
Temporal causation
Temporal causation is an order of cause and effect within time, where the cause is temporally prior to its effect.
In simple terms:
cause → effect
with:
cause occurring before effect
This is the form of causation underlying the Kalām argument.
If something begins to exist at a particular point, the Kalām argues that there must be a cause of that beginning.
This is different from atemporal causation, which is important in Aquinas' First and Second Ways [Aquinas' First and Second Ways].
Temporal causation is not temporal order
Do not confuse temporal causation with the temporal order studied in Swinburne and Temporal Order [Swinburne and Temporal Order].
Temporal causation | Temporal order |
A cause occurs before its effect | Events display regular patterns over time |
Used in the Kalām argument | Used in Swinburne's design argument |
Concerns causal beginnings | Concerns regularities of succession |
Leads towards a first cause | Leads towards a designing intelligence |
They both involve time, but they perform completely different philosophical roles.
The causal principle
The Kalām depends upon a causal principle.
AQA defines a causal principle broadly as the claim that an event, such as something coming into existence, has a cause.
For the Kalām, the relevant formulation is:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Notice what this does not say.
It does not say:
Everything has a cause.
That would immediately raise the question:
What caused God?
Instead, the principle applies specifically to things that begin to exist.
This distinction is essential.
Why the wording matters
Suppose someone reconstructs the argument as:
Everything has a cause.
The universe has a cause.
God caused the universe.
God has no cause.
This creates an obvious inconsistency.
If literally everything must have a cause, then God would require a cause too.
The Kalām avoids this by beginning with the more restricted claim:
Things that begin to exist have causes.
The conclusion then proposes an uncaused cause rather than something that itself began to exist.
Reconstructing the Kalām argument
A clear reconstruction is:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
This ultimately requires a first cause which is itself uncaused.
This first cause is presented as God.
The core deductive inference is contained in the first three steps.
If:
everything beginning to exist has a cause, and
the universe began to exist,
then:
the universe has a cause.
The further philosophical question is what can legitimately be inferred about that cause.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The first premise is the causal principle.
Its appeal is straightforward:
when something begins to exist, it seems natural to ask:
What caused it to begin?
The Kalām generalises this into a universal principle.
A strong evaluation must therefore ask:
Is the causal principle justified in every case?
This issue becomes particularly important in Problems for Cosmological Arguments [Problems for Cosmological Arguments], where AQA requires Hume's objection to the causal principle.
For this lesson, the important point is that the causal principle is a premise, not something that should simply be assumed without recognition.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
The second premise concerns the temporal beginning of the universe.
The Kalām argument requires the universe to have a beginning because its causal reasoning applies to things that begin to exist.
So:
if the universe began to exist, the causal principle applies
if the universe did not begin to exist, this particular version of the argument loses its starting point.
This shows why the Kalām differs from Aquinas' arguments.
Aquinas' atemporal causal reasoning does not depend in the same way upon the universe having a first moment in time.
Why a temporal beginning matters
The reasoning can be broken down like this:
Premise 1: Anything beginning to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Once both premises are accepted, the conclusion follows:
The universe has a cause.
So the temporal beginning is not a small detail.
It is essential to the argument.
Without it, Premise 1 cannot straightforwardly be applied to the universe.
From "the universe has a cause" to "there is a first cause"
The argument then moves from:
the universe has a cause
to:
there must be a first cause of the beginning of the universe.
AQA describes the Kalām precisely in terms of a first cause of the universe's beginning.
The point is that the explanatory chain cannot begin with the universe itself, because the universe is what requires explanation.
The proposed explanatory starting point is therefore something that does not itself belong to the same sequence of caused beginnings.
Why is the first cause uncaused?
AQA describes the first cause as itself uncaused.
This matters because if the supposed first cause were itself caused in the relevant way, it would not yet be the first cause.
We would have to continue asking:
What caused that?
The argument therefore terminates with:
an uncaused first cause.
This does not mean the Kalām begins by assuming:
everything has a cause except God.
Instead, the relevant causal principle applies to things that begin to exist, while the conclusion is an uncaused first cause.
Does the argument establish that the cause is God?
This requires careful analysis.
The core premises establish, if successful:
the universe has a first cause of its beginning.
AQA presents that first uncaused cause as God.
However, there is a difference between establishing:
an uncaused first cause exists
and establishing:
the uncaused first cause possesses every traditional divine attribute.
The argument as specified does not by itself demonstrate that the first cause is:
omniscient
omnipotent
omnibenevolent
eternal or everlasting.
Those features belong to the broader discussion in Divine Attributes [Divine Attributes].
So a strong exam answer should be careful about the strength of the conclusion.
The logical form of the Kalām
The central Kalām reasoning is deductive.
It has the form:
All things of type A have property B.
The universe is of type A.
Therefore, the universe has property B.
More specifically:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If both premises are true, the conclusion follows.
This means that evaluating the argument involves asking:
Is the reasoning valid?
Is Premise 1 true?
Is Premise 2 true?
Does the later move from "cause" to "God" establish everything claimed?
This uses the skills developed in Forms of Philosophical Argument [Forms of Philosophical Argument].
Validity and soundness
A deductive argument can be valid without being sound.
Validity
An argument is valid when:
if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
The basic Kalām structure is intended to be valid.
Soundness
A sound argument must be:
valid
based on true premises.
Therefore, even if the conclusion follows logically from Premises 1 and 2, a critic can challenge either premise.
This is crucial.
A student should not write:
"It is deductive, therefore it proves God."
Deduction guarantees the conclusion only if the premises are true.
How strong is the conclusion?
AQA requires students to consider the strength of the conclusions reached by arguments for God's existence.
The Kalām aims to establish something stronger than:
God probably exists.
Its central reasoning is deductive.
If the premises are accepted, the conclusion that the universe has a cause is intended to follow necessarily.
However, the exact content of the conclusion needs care.
The argument's immediate causal conclusion is:
there is a cause of the universe's beginning.
The fuller conclusion is:
there is an uncaused first cause, presented as God.
Further attributes should not simply be added without argument.
Does the Kalām say the universe cannot be infinite?
The specified Kalām argument reasons from the temporal beginning of the universe.
AQA separately identifies:
the possibility of an infinite series
as an issue that may arise for cosmological arguments.
This is examined in detail in Problems for Cosmological Arguments [Problems for Cosmological Arguments].
For this lesson, the important relationship is:
Kalām requires a temporal beginning
the possibility of an infinite causal or temporal series could therefore create a challenge.
Detailed arguments concerning whether an infinite series is possible belong in the later lesson.
Hume's challenge to the causal principle
AQA also specifies a Humean objection to the causal principle.
The basic challenge is to the claim:
everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Hume's objection questions whether this universal causal principle can be justified.
AQA connects the objection with Hume's Fork:
it is not a relation of ideas, because denying it does not create a contradiction
experience cannot establish it as a universal truth.
This objection is developed fully in Problems for Cosmological Arguments [Problems for Cosmological Arguments].
For the Kalām, its significance is clear:
if Premise 1 cannot be justified, the deductive argument is not sound.
Why Hume's objection does not show the Kalām is invalid
This distinction is very important.
Suppose Hume successfully challenges:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
That attacks the truth of a premise.
It does not necessarily show that this reasoning is invalid:
Everything beginning to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The conclusion still follows from the premises.
The problem would instead be:
We do not have sufficient reason to accept one of the premises.
So:
validity and soundness must not be confused.
The Kalām and Aquinas compared
The Kalām and Aquinas both offer cosmological arguments, but their causal structures differ.
Kalām | Aquinas' First and Second Ways |
Focuses on a temporal beginning | Does not depend in the same way on a temporal beginning |
Uses temporal causation | Includes atemporal causal reasoning |
Cause is prior to effect in time | Causal hierarchy concerns sustained dependence |
Begins from the universe beginning to exist | Begins from change or efficient causes |
Concludes with a first cause of the universe's beginning | Concludes with first or sustaining causal principles |
This distinction becomes central in Aquinas' First and Second Ways [Aquinas' First and Second Ways].
Temporal versus atemporal causation
This comparison deserves particular attention.
Temporal causation
The cause occurs before the effect.
This is the Kalām structure:
first cause → beginning of universe
Atemporal causation
The relevant relationship concerns ongoing or hierarchical dependence rather than simply one event occurring earlier than another.
This is important to Aquinas.
Therefore, do not write:
"All cosmological arguments say there had to be a first event before everything else."
That is not accurate across the specification.
Evaluating Premise 1
Premise 1 is:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Questions for evaluation include:
What justification supports this universal principle?
Is it necessarily true?
Can experience establish it universally?
Does Hume's objection undermine it?
If Premise 1 is false or unjustified, the Kalām may be valid but unsound.
Evaluating Premise 2
Premise 2 is:
The universe began to exist.
This premise is essential because the causal principle applies to beginnings.
AQA's supplied material identifies the Kalām as arguing from the temporal beginning of the universe but does not supply additional scientific or philosophical arguments establishing that beginning.
Therefore, the secure evaluative point is:
the argument works only if the premise that the universe has a temporal beginning is accepted.
Claims about particular scientific theories should not be added unless separately supported.
Evaluating the move to a first cause
Even after accepting:
the universe has a cause,
students should ask:
What exactly follows about that cause?
The argument presents it as an uncaused first cause.
The evaluation therefore has two stages:
Does the universe require a first cause?
Does identifying that cause with God establish the required conception of God?
A strong answer should not treat those questions as identical.
Does the argument explain why God is uncaused?
The argument treats the first cause as uncaused because otherwise it would not be the explanatory starting point.
However, this must be expressed accurately.
Do not write:
"Everything needs a cause except God."
The argument's first premise is narrower:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore, there is no formal contradiction in proposing an uncaused first cause, provided that the first cause is not itself treated as something that began to exist.
Whether this is philosophically satisfactory is a further evaluative question.
Does the conclusion contain enough information about God?
Suppose the Kalām succeeds completely in establishing:
an uncaused cause of the beginning of the universe exists.
There is still a question about whether this is sufficient to establish the God described in Divine Attributes [Divine Attributes].
The immediate argument does not itself show all the features of:
knowledge
power
goodness
relationship with time.
This does not mean the argument has failed.
It means its conclusion should be stated at the appropriate strength.
The Kalām as an a posteriori argument
The argument begins with a claim concerning the universe and its temporal beginning rather than purely analysing the concept of God.
It therefore contrasts with the ontological arguments studied earlier.
The broad difference is:
Ontological arguments | Kalām cosmological argument |
Begin with a conception of God | Begins from the universe |
A priori | Concerns the existence and beginning of the world |
Move from concept to necessary existence | Moves from a temporal beginning to a first cause |
Both may be deductive, but their starting points are very different.
Overall assessment
The Kalām cosmological argument begins with temporal causation and the causal principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. If the universe began to exist, the argument concludes that the universe has a cause of its beginning. This leads to an uncaused first cause, presented as God.
Its core reasoning is deductive: if the causal principle and the temporal beginning of the universe are accepted, the conclusion that the universe has a cause follows. Evaluation therefore focuses heavily on the premises and on the strength of the final conclusion.
A successful argument would establish an uncaused first cause of the universe's beginning. Further argument would be required before simply attributing all the traditional characteristics of God to that cause.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Kalām argument | A cosmological argument from the temporal beginning of the universe to an uncaused first cause, presented as God. | Use when reconstructing the overall argument. |
Temporal causation | Causation within time in which a cause is temporally prior to its effect. | Use to distinguish the Kalām from Aquinas' atemporal causal arguments. |
Causal principle | The principle that events such as things beginning to exist have causes. | Use when explaining the first premise of the Kalām. |
First cause | The causal starting point used to explain the beginning of the universe. | Use when explaining the conclusion of the argument. |
Uncaused | Not itself caused by a prior cause. | Use when explaining why the proposed first cause terminates the causal explanation. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
No lesson-specific examiner guidance was identified in the provided reports.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying "everything has a cause"
Why this is incorrect:The relevant causal principle is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
How to improve:Use the premise precisely. This also avoids creating an immediate contradiction with the claim that the first cause is uncaused.
Mistake: Confusing temporal causation with temporal order
Why this is incorrect:Temporal causation concerns causes being prior to effects. Temporal order concerns regularities of succession and belongs to Swinburne's design argument.
How to improve:Link temporal causation to the beginning of the universe.
Mistake: Treating the Kalām as the same argument as Aquinas' Second Way
Why this is incorrect:The Kalām depends upon temporal causation, while Aquinas' Second Way uses atemporal causation.
How to improve:Identify the kind of causal relationship before reconstructing the argument.
Mistake: Saying deduction guarantees that the Kalām is true
Why this is incorrect:A deductively valid argument establishes its conclusion only if its premises are true.
How to improve:Distinguish validity from soundness and evaluate both premises.
Mistake: Jumping immediately from "the universe has a cause" to every traditional divine attribute
Why this is incorrect:The immediate conclusion is an uncaused first cause of the universe's beginning.
How to improve:State exactly what the argument establishes and recognise that further divine attributes require further argument.
Mistake: Using scientific claims that are not part of the supplied material
Why this is incorrect:The specification requires the Kalām as an argument from the temporal beginning of the universe, but the supplied material does not prescribe detailed scientific arguments for that beginning.
How to improve:Keep the explanation focused on the specified philosophical structure.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define temporal causation. (3 marks)
Indicative answer:Temporal causation is an order of cause and effect within time in which the cause is temporally prior to its effect.
Marking guidance:Credit both the causal relationship and the fact that the cause comes before the effect in time.
Question 2
Explain the causal principle used in the Kalām cosmological argument. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:The causal principle used by the Kalām is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The argument applies this principle to the universe: if the universe began to exist, its beginning must have a cause.
Marking guidance:A strong answer should not replace the principle with the inaccurate claim that "everything has a cause".
Question 3
Explain why the temporal beginning of the universe is important to the Kalām argument. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:The Kalām's causal principle applies to things that begin to exist. Therefore, the argument can apply that principle to the universe only if the universe itself began to exist. If the universe had no temporal beginning, the argument's specified route from beginning to first cause would be undermined.
Marking guidance:The response should connect the second premise directly to the causal principle.
Question 4
Explain why the Kalām concludes that the first cause is uncaused. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:The argument seeks a first cause explaining the beginning of the universe. If this first cause itself required a prior cause in the same sequence, it would not yet be the first cause. The Kalām therefore concludes with an uncaused first cause.
Marking guidance:Credit explanation of the role played by the uncaused cause rather than merely stating that God has no cause.
Question 5
Explain the Kalām cosmological argument. (12 marks)
Indicative content might include:
The Kalām is a cosmological argument.
It is based on temporal causation.
Temporal causes are prior in time to their effects.
The causal principle states that everything beginning to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.
The argument moves to a first cause.
The first cause is itself uncaused.
This first cause is presented as God.
The core argument is deductive.
The argument should not be reconstructed as "everything has a cause".
The immediate conclusion concerns an uncaused first cause rather than automatically establishing every traditional divine attribute.
Marking guidance:A developed response should reconstruct the premises and conclusion clearly and explain why the argument specifically depends upon temporal beginnings.
Question 6
Explain one difference between temporal and atemporal causation. (5 marks)
Indicative answer:Temporal causation involves a cause occurring before its effect in time and forms the basis of the Kalām argument. Atemporal causation concerns hierarchical or sustaining causal dependence and does not depend in the same way upon a first event in time. Atemporal causation is relevant to Aquinas' arguments.
Marking guidance:Credit a precise distinction between causal priority in time and sustaining or hierarchical dependence.
Question 7
Evaluate whether the Kalām cosmological argument successfully establishes a first cause. (25 marks)
Indicative content:
A developed answer could consider:
The definition of temporal causation.
The causal principle that everything beginning to exist has a cause.
The premise that the universe began to exist.
The deductive structure of the core argument.
The distinction between validity and soundness.
Whether the causal principle has been adequately justified.
Hume's objection to the causal principle, developed in Problems for Cosmological Arguments [Problems for Cosmological Arguments].
Whether the temporal beginning of the universe has been adequately established.
The importance of the possibility of an infinite series.
Whether establishing a cause of the universe's beginning justifies moving to an uncaused first cause.
Whether the immediate conclusion is stronger than the premises permit.
A reasoned judgement about whether the argument successfully establishes a first cause.
Marking guidance:The strongest responses will analyse the two main premises separately and distinguish criticism of a premise from criticism of the argument's deductive validity.
Question 8
Evaluate whether the Kalām cosmological argument successfully establishes the existence of God. (25 marks)
Indicative content:
A developed answer could consider:
The argument's starting point in temporal causation.
The claim that everything beginning to exist has a cause.
The claim that the universe began to exist.
The conclusion that the universe has a cause.
The move from a cause to an uncaused first cause.
Why the argument identifies this first cause with God.
Whether the argument is deductively valid.
Whether its premises are sufficiently justified.
Hume's challenge to the causal principle.
The possible challenge from an infinite series.
The difference between establishing an uncaused first cause and establishing an omniscient, omnipotent and supremely good God.
Comparison with Aquinas' First and Second Ways [Aquinas' First and Second Ways], which use a different causal structure.
A reasoned judgement about exactly what the Kalām establishes if its premises succeed.
Marking guidance:A strong response should avoid treating "first cause" and "the complete traditional concept of God" as automatically equivalent. It should evaluate both the soundness of the causal argument and the strength of its final conclusion.
Comments