1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause of its existence.[3]

The causal argument is not merely invalid but self-contradictory: the conclusion, which says that something (God) does not have a cause, contradicts the premise, which says that everything does have a cause.[4]

This new form of the argument, as found above, avoids such fallacies (at least for now). Craig concedes that the �key premise in our syllogism is certainly the second.�[5] He first tries to support this claim with a philosophical argument against the existence of an �actual infinite.�

As Craig puts it:

The only legitimate sense in which one can speak of the infinite is in terms of potentiality: something may be infinitely divisible or susceptible to infinite addition, but this type of infinity is potential only and can never be fully actualized.[6]

Craig actually uses two grounds to support his second premise. Aside from his philosophical argument, Craig, as well as Aijaz, defer to science, and state the theory of the Bing Bang supports this premise. It is the goal of this article to show that the Kalam does not prove the existence of God, and the scientific argument will not even be considered beyond this paragraph. The reality is that most interpretations of Quantum Mechanics hold that the Big Bang is simply uncaused. The Theists can�t have it both ways; either they make an appeal to this theory and accept that the universe is uncaused, or they refrain from erroneously claiming that Quantum Mechanics is on their side.

So, without the scientific argument, Craig and Aijaz are left only with their claims about an infinite regress being impossible. This is reached only through an abuse of the concept of infinity towards their own end. This talk of an actual infinite is fallacious in the sense that they both treat infinity as a number. To claim that we cannot reach an actual infinite is essentially like saying that one cannot count to infinity. I cannot put enough emphasis on the fact that infinity is not a number!

Though both Craig and Aijaz claim that they have a decent understanding of Cantor and transfinite set theory, the reality is that their arguments ignore the main discoveries of this field of mathematics. The problems that allegedly arise from an infinite regress are not new; indeed Kant himself pondered such things:

That being said, it should be noted that Kant did not assume this proved time was finite. Consider the following:

[Kant] presented another argument that seemed to lead to the opposite conclusion; he believed he could show that the idea of finite time also led to a contradiction. Time could not have a beginning, he said, because one could ask what had happened before this point, It could not have an end because one could then ask what happened after that. Kant was trying to prove that, since time could be neither infinite nor finite, it was not a property of the external world.[8]

Indeed, I agree that it is impossible to traverse an infinite, but this is actually where the problem lies. For the last twenty-four centuries, every great mathematician from the mystic Zeno all the way to Cantor could tell you that on an infinite plane, any two points are a finite distance away from one another (yet there are an infinite number of points between them). This is a given, and not up for grabs.

So, Craig and Aijaz want us to believe that an infinite cannot be traversed, and I agree 100%. The main problem is that they are contradicting themselves. Indeed, if you start at one point, you cannot reach the end of an infinite number of points. Aijaz and Craig have a problem with beginningless time, yet one can only traverse an infinite if they start at the beginning of this beginningless stretch of time! This is where the contradiction is: you are only traversing the whole span if you start at the beginning, but if it is beginningless, there is no beginning. Any point on a scale that stretches backwards is a finite distance away from the present, and that�s final.

This is a reality that is painfully obvious, but proponents of the Kalam cosmological argument either know this truth, yet deny it out of pure obstinacy, or are wholly ignorant of simple mathematical principles. It is odd that these types will often site an example such as the paradox of the aforementioned Zeno, which is what I�d like to discuss now in order to put the final nails in the proverbial coffin.

Zeno was a follower of Parmenides, and sought to prove that our concepts of time and change were mere illusions[9]. His paradox was meant to be a justification of his deeply mystical views. That being said, let us consider his paradox, and show how it actually refutes Craig and Aijaz� claims about infinite regresses being impossible.

One of Zeno�s paradoxes is was known as �the Dichotomy.� It starts with a man ready to walk or run a finite distance, yet because there are an infinite number of points on any plane, the person will never be able to complete the distance, as an infinite cannot be traversed. As Richard Morris recounts the tale:

Furthermore, it is not even possible to get started, Zeno says. After all, before the second half of the distance can be traveled, one must cover the first half. But before that distance can be traveled, the first quarter must be completed. And before that can be done, one must traverse the first eighth, and so on and so on.[10]

Other abuses of mathematics include an appeal to Hilbert�s Hotel. In attempting to show the �absurdity� of an actual infinite, both Aijaz and Craig have been known to cite Hilbert�s Hotel, a puzzle that contemplates the infinite. As Craig writes:

The same absurdity is evident in an illustration employed by David Hilber to exhibit the paradoxical properties of the actual infinite, appropriately dubbed Hilbert�s Hotel: Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms, and let us assume that all the rooms are occupied [�] Now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and let us assume that all the rooms are occupied.�[11]

They are erroneously treating infinity as a finite number, and this is not something new. Aijaz once wrote that if you had the �highest finite number,� he could go one higher. Why Aijaz felt the need to presuppose the existence of something as absurd as �the highest finite number� is unknown to me.

All the work that Craig put into proving that time has a beginning on philosophical grounds was nothing more than an abuse of mathematics. However, assuming that the premises of his argument were all true, it only proves the existence of a first cause, or at least a cause of the universe. Nothing in the argument tells us about this alleged first cause.

Indeed, this could just as easily be an argument for the claim that Santa�s elves from dimension X created the universe. Michael Martin sums up this problem as follows:

It should be obvious that Craig�s conclusion that a single personal agent created the universe is a non sequitur. At most, the Kalam argument shows that some personal agent or agents created the universe. Craig cannot validly conclude that a single agent is the creator. On the contrary, for all he shows, there may have been trillions of personal agents involved in the creation.[12]

Why should we even assume that the first cause is conscious? Is not a tree the unconscious cause of certain fruit? Is not a cloud the unconscious cause of rain? Are there not numerous causes that are wholly unconscious? Why should we assume that because there is allegedly a first cause, this cause wants us to call it �Allah,� and tell it what a great guy it is five times a day? All hail the first cause! Bang your head on the ground and praise its name� or maybe we should throw Monotheism out the window and ponder the wisdom of the Dao-De-Jing, which tells us that �the name that can be named is not the eternal name.�

In the article The Logic of Allah's Existence, we discussed why all arguments for God's existence fail to actually prove His existence. While many of these arguments are valid, they are all far from being sound. The comsological argument falls under that category as well.

That being said, it should again be noted that one cannot demonstrate God's existence via appeals to personal assumptions about the nature of causal relationships. It is always this sort of fallacy (which usually incorporates an appeal to personal incredulity) that comes up when theists say "such and such event must've been caused by Gawd." Once again, they have presupposed the existence of their deity, as well as presupposed his role as a causal agent, which is an example of begging the question. Arabic readers are advised to consider An-Nazr fi l-Asbaab li-uuli l-Albaab ("A Look At Causes For Those Who Have Reason"), an article written by Sulayman at-Talliyy for the STMetaNat.

This short discussion should be enough on why the Kalam cosmological argument is not a proof for God's existence. Other relevant sites would be the Ozkeptic Argument Maps, or The Secular Web's section on the Cosmological Argument.
*** Imran Aijaz' response to this article can be found at http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/k_dfnce.htm