3.3 Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
In the previous sections, we saw that the universe very likely had a beginning. Whether through the Big Bang theory or the impossibility of crossing an infinite regress of past events, all evidence suggests that the cosmos is not eternal in the past.
We are therefore faced with a profound and dizzying question:
Why is there something rather than nothing?
If the universe began to exist, then something outside the universe must have caused that beginning. This brings us to the Kalām Cosmological Argument, revitalized in modern philosophy by William Lane Craig.
The Kalām Argument #
The argument can be summarized in three steps:
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
William Lane Craig, The Kalām Cosmological Argument, 1979.
The conclusion is straightforward: the universe cannot be the cause of its own existence. It must therefore depend on a first cause — one that is independent of time, space, and matter.
In the Kalām argument, points (1) and (2) serve as the premises (or axioms; see Chapter 2). We have already examined two arguments supporting the idea that the universe had a beginning. But what about the first premise?
The first pillar of the Kalām argument claims that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. At first glance, this seems obvious, even trivial — but it deserves a closer look, since it has been the source of significant debate in both philosophy and physics.
✅ Arguments in Favor of the Premise #
Universal Experience of Reality
In all our ordinary experience, things never appear without a reason. Whenever an object, a sound, or a phenomenon manifests, our natural impulse is to look for its cause. This is not superstition — it is the very foundation of rational and scientific inquiry.
Imagine a sphere suddenly appearing in the middle of an empty room. Would we accept that it “just appeared,” without origin or reason? Such an answer would offend our deepest intuition of reason.
Nothingness Cannot Produce Anything
“Nothing” is not an empty physical vacuum — it is the total absence of being, properties, or potential. And what has no properties cannot cause anything. Causality is therefore not just an empirical rule, but a logical necessity: being cannot arise from absolute nonbeing.
No Conclusive Counterexamples
To date, no observed phenomenon has ever truly emerged from nothing. Even apparently random quantum events — decays, vacuum fluctuations — occur within a preexisting physical context governed by laws. They are not examples of creation ex nihilo.
❌ Objections to the Premise #
Quantum Phenomena Might Be Uncaused
In quantum mechanics, certain events — such as radioactive decay — appear to occur without a determinable cause. This could seem to challenge the universality of causation.
However, these events do not arise from nothing: they occur within a structured vacuum and follow probabilistic laws. They illustrate indeterministic causality, not the absence of causality.
The Empiricist Critique of Causation (Hume)
The philosopher David Hume argued that causation is not a rational necessity but a habit of thought. We observe regularities, but we never directly perceive a causal link. Therefore, claiming that every beginning must have a cause would be a psychological inference rather than a logically necessary truth.
The Ambiguity of “Beginning”
Some objects or phenomena — mountains, clouds, waves — have beginnings that are hard to define. Extending this ambiguity to the universe itself could make the concept of a “beginning” problematic.
Can the Principle Apply to the Universe Itself?
The universe is not an object within a larger framework — it includes all space, time, and physical laws. Can we therefore apply to the universe the very principles that operate within it? Some argue that causality, like time, might not exist “before” the universe.
The Problem of Causality Beyond Time
Causation presupposes a “before” and “after.” If time did not exist before the universe, then the very concept of a “cause” becomes unclear. Can we meaningfully speak of a cause outside of time?
In Summary #
Despite the objections, the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause remains, in my view, reasonably well-founded. It rests on a long philosophical tradition, on our constant experience of the world, and on the logical impossibility that something could emerge from absolute nothingness.
The objections, though serious, do not disprove the premise — they only question its application to extreme domains such as the origin of the universe itself.
The Kalām Cosmological Argument does not claim to prove everything one might believe about God. But it offers a powerful rational pathway toward the existence of a creative agent at the origin of the universe.