The most fundamental question in philosophy is: Why is there something rather than nothing? This isn't asking about specific things—why chairs or trees or people exist. It's asking about existence itself. Why does anything exist at all?
The cosmological argument, particularly the Kalam version popularized by William Lane Craig, offers an answer: the universe requires a cause beyond itself, and that cause is God.
The argument is straightforward:
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
Each premise requires defense, but if both are true, the conclusion follows necessarily.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
This seems obviously true. We never observe things popping into existence uncaused from nothing. If something begins to exist, it's always because something caused it to exist. Denying this principle would make all science impossible—if things can pop into existence uncaused, why bother looking for explanations?
Some philosophers challenge this, arguing that quantum mechanics shows particles can appear uncaused. But this misunderstands quantum physics. Virtual particles don't appear from nothing; they appear from quantum vacuum, which is something (a low-energy quantum field state). Moreover, their appearance follows probabilistic laws, which are still causal structures.
The principle holds: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist
This used to be controversial. Aristotle and many ancient philosophers believed in an eternal universe. But both Scripture and modern observational evidence confirm that the universe had a definite beginning.
Genesis 1:1 declares: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This is not mythological language but historical truth—the universe began to exist when God created it approximately 6,000 years ago during creation week.
Modern observations support a beginning: cosmic microwave background radiation, expansion of space, relative abundances of light elements, the second law of thermodynamics. All point to a universe with a beginning. While secular cosmologists interpret this data through a billions-of-years framework requiring speculative "Big Bang" scenarios, young-earth creationists recognize this same data as evidence for God's recent supernatural creation event during creation week.
Some physicists propose models to avoid a true beginning—eternal inflation, cyclic universes, quantum fluctuation from nothing. But these either push the problem back without solving it (multiverse still needs explanation) or rely on questionable physics (true nothing can't have quantum properties).
The evidence—both biblical and observational—indicates the universe began to exist.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause
If both premises are true, the conclusion follows logically. The universe began to exist, and whatever begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
What can we know about this cause? It must be:
- Timeless, since time began with the universe
- Spaceless, since space began with the universe
- Immaterial, since matter began with the universe
- Powerful, to create the universe from nothing
- Personal, since only agents can cause effects without prior determining conditions
This looks remarkably like the God of classical theism—eternal, immaterial, powerful, personal. The cosmological argument doesn't prove Christianity specifically, but it does establish theism as more rational than atheism.
As someone who values logical arguments, I find the cosmological argument compelling. It's not faith without reason; it's following the evidence to its logical conclusion. The universe requires explanation beyond itself, and God provides that explanation.
Critics raise various objections:
"What caused God?" This misunderstands the argument. The premise is "whatever begins to exist has a cause," not "everything has a cause." God, by definition, doesn't begin to exist. He exists eternally, without cause. This isn't special pleading; it's recognizing that an infinite regress of causes is impossible, so the causal chain must terminate in an uncaused First Cause.
"Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause?" Because the universe began to exist. Things that begin to exist require causes. You can't have the universe causing itself; causation requires temporal priority, and nothing can be temporally prior to itself.
"Science will eventually explain the universe without God." This is faith in science, not science itself. Current physics strongly suggests the universe began to exist. Any scientific explanation of the universe's origin must either posit something prior (which just pushes the question back) or claim the universe came from absolutely nothing (which violates physical principles). Neither eliminates the need for a transcendent cause.
"What about theories of eternal universes or pre-Big Bang scenarios?" Some models propose this, but they either (a) push the problem back without solving it, (b) rely on speculative physics with no empirical support, or (c) still require a beginning if traced back far enough. Moreover, from a young-earth creationist perspective, the so-called "Big Bang" is better understood as God's supernatural creation event during creation week, not a naturalistic explosion billions of years ago. The expansion of space and other observations are real, but the timeframe is thousands of years, not billions.
The cosmological argument is one pillar of a cumulative case for God. Alone, it doesn't prove Christianity. But combined with the fine-tuning argument, the moral argument, the argument from consciousness, and historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection, it contributes to a robust case for Christian theism.
What strikes me most about the cosmological argument is its elegance. The question "why does anything exist?" seems so basic, yet its answer has profound implications. If the universe has a cause beyond itself, then reality is more than just material stuff following natural laws. There's a transcendent source, a Creator who brought everything into being.
This has practical implications. If God created the universe, then our existence isn't accidental. We're not cosmic flukes in a meaningless universe. We're intended creations of a purposeful Creator. That changes everything—ethics, meaning, our place in the cosmos.
It also addresses the problem of evil in interesting ways. If God created ex nihilo (from nothing), then evil isn't a metaphysical equal to good. It's privation, corruption, absence of proper good. God created good; evil is parasitic on that good. This doesn't solve every aspect of the problem of evil, but it establishes an important asymmetry.
The cosmological argument also resonates with Scripture's opening: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This isn't primitive myth; it's profound metaphysics. Before the beginning, only God. At the beginning, God acts to bring creation into existence. The universe has an absolute origin, and that origin is divine creative act.
For autistic thinkers who value logical rigor, the cosmological argument is satisfying. It's not mystical intuition or emotional experience. It's careful reasoning from empirically verified premises to a necessary conclusion. You can map the logic, test the premises, and see whether the argument holds.
And it does hold. The universe began to exist—physics confirms this. Whatever begins to exist has a cause—philosophy and science both presuppose this. Therefore, the universe has a cause—logic demands this. That cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and personal—metaphysics requires this.
Put it together, and you get something very close to the God revealed in Scripture. Not every detail, not specifically Christian. But a personal Creator who transcends the universe and brought it into being. That's a significant conclusion from a relatively simple argument.
The cosmological argument doesn't force belief. You can reject the premises or question the reasoning. But you can't simply dismiss it as blind faith or wishful thinking. It's serious philosophy based on serious science, and it points toward God as the best explanation for why anything exists at all.
For me, this argument was pivotal in moving from agnostic uncertainty to Christian faith. Once I accepted that the universe requires a transcendent cause, the question became: what is this cause like? And when I examined Jesus's claims, His resurrection, and Christian theology, I found compelling answers.
The cosmological argument establishes the foundation: God exists as Creator of the universe. Everything else in Christian theology builds on this foundation. Without it, Christianity collapses into ethical teachings detached from metaphysics. With it, Christianity offers a comprehensive explanation of reality—why there's something rather than nothing, why that something is ordered and intelligible, and why we exist within it.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Not as poetic metaphor but as literal truth. The universe began. That beginning requires a Beginner. And that Beginner is God.
The alternative—the universe popping into existence uncaused from nothing—isn't scientific sophistication. It's philosophical absurdity dressed in scientific language. True nothing has no properties, no potential, no quantum fluctuations. Nothing comes from nothing. That principle is self-evident.
But something exists. You're reading this. I wrote it. The universe is here. That existence demands explanation. And the cosmological argument provides one: a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal Creator who brought the universe into being.
That's not the end of the discussion. It's the beginning. But it's a solid beginning, grounded in logic and evidence, pointing toward the God who reveals Himself in Scripture and definitively in Jesus Christ.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Because God created it. That's not blind faith. That's following the evidence where it leads.