Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

3.4 Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

In the previous sections, we have seen that the universe most likely had a beginning. Whether through the Big Bang theory, the study of alternative models such as the Big Bounce or certain quantum scenarios, or the impossibility of traversing an infinite past of successive events, everything converges toward the idea that the cosmos is not eternal in the past—even if some models posit a prior state, such as a quantum vacuum, which must not be confused with absolute nothingness.

This leaves us with a fundamental, dizzying question:

Why is there something rather than nothing?

If the universe began to exist, it becomes natural to ask whether it has a cause—and, if so, what the nature of such a cause might be. This is where the Kalam cosmological argument comes in, revived in modern times by the philosopher William Lane Craig.

The Kalam Argument: Statement #

The argument can be stated simply in three steps:

Whatever 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 clear: the universe cannot be its own foundation. It necessarily follows from a first cause, independent of time, space, and matter.

In the Kalam argument, points 1 and 2 are premises (or axioms; see Chapter 2). In the previous sections, we have examined two arguments in favor of the beginning of the universe.

What about the first premise? The first pillar of the Kalam cosmological argument claims that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. At first glance, this proposition seems obvious, almost trivial. Yet it deserves careful analysis, given the debates and objections it has raised in both philosophy and physics.

✅ Arguments in Favor of the Premise #

Universal experience of reality
In all of our ordinary experience, things never simply appear without a reason. When an object, a sound, or a phenomenon occurs, our first instinct is to look for its cause. This reflex is not superstition, but the very foundation of rational and scientific thought.
Imagine that a sphere were suddenly to appear in the middle of an empty room: would we accept that it had “simply appeared,” with no origin and no reason? Such an answer would run deeply against our rational instincts.
Nothing cannot produce anything (logical argument)
Nothingness is not a physical vacuum, but the total absence of being, property, and potential. But what has no properties cannot produce anything at all.
This argument is logical and metaphysical in nature: it does not depend on experience, but on the very analysis of the concept of nothingness.
From nothing, nothing comes (ex nihilo nihil fit).
The absence of decisive counterexamples
Quite apart from philosophical analysis, experience confirms this intuition: no observed phenomenon seems truly to arise from nothing.
Quantum phenomena are sometimes invoked as counterexamples. Indeed, some events—such as radioactive decay—appear unpredictable and seem to occur without any determinable cause.
However, these events do not arise from nothing. They occur within a preexisting physical framework governed by well-defined laws and structures.
So this is not a case of ex nihilo creation, but rather of non-deterministic causality: the precise outcome is not predictable, but it still takes place within a lawful system.
Thus, quantum phenomena do not constitute clear counterexamples to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause. See below.

❌ Objections to the Premise #

The empiricist critique of causality (Hume)
The philosopher David Hume argued that causality is not a rational necessity, but a habit of thought. According to him, we observe regularities, but we never directly perceive the causal link itself. Therefore, to claim that a beginning implies a cause would not be a necessary truth, but a psychological inference grounded in habit.
Conceptual vagueness of “beginning”
Some phenomena—such as mountains, clouds, or waves—have gradual beginnings that are difficult to define precisely.
Extending this observation to the case of the universe could make the very concept of a beginning ambiguous: is it a precise instant, or a gradual process? This indeterminacy could weaken the first premise.
Can the principle be applied to the universe itself?
The universe is not one object among others: it includes the whole of space, time, and the laws of physics. Can we then apply to it principles that we derive from observing phenomena within the universe?
Some argue that causality itself may depend on the structure of the universe, and therefore may not be applicable to its origin.
The problem of causality outside time
Causality is usually conceived as a relation between a “before” and an “after.” But if time begins with the universe, then there would be no “before” in the strict sense.
The very concept of cause then becomes difficult to formulate: can we still speak of causality in the absence of temporality? Or must we rethink cause as a non-temporal relation of dependence?

Does Quantum Physics Challenge Causality? #

In an interview devoted to the link between quantum physics and metaphysics (see the video below¹), the physicist Yves Dupont offers an interesting perspective on the question of causality.

People often say that quantum physics has “destroyed” the principle of causality, as if some phenomena could now occur without any cause whatsoever. Yet this idea rests largely on a misunderstanding.

In reality, quantum physics does not eliminate causality: it profoundly changes our understanding of it.

In classical physics, causality is intuitive. One object pushes another, and we can easily identify a direct cause followed by an effect. But in the quantum world, that picture becomes insufficient. Particles do not behave like simple localized objects: they are described by quantum states (or wave functions), which are much more abstract.

If we cling to a purely “material” view of particles, some phenomena can seem incoherent, or even acausal. By contrast, when they are interpreted in terms of quantum states, a form of coherence reappears.

Moreover, the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics—the evolution of states—remains deterministic: if the initial state of a system is known, its evolution can be derived.

The difficulty arises at the moment of measurement. At that stage, the result obtained is not determined with certainty, but only probabilistically. What we then observe is what some physicists call irreducible randomness, that is, an outcome whose precise cause is not accessible within the framework of physical laws.

That does not mean that there is no cause at all, but rather that causality does not always appear in a simple and directly observable form.

In summary: quantum physics does not show that events occur “for no reason.” It suggests rather that:

classical causality is insufficient for describing reality in depth;
the evolution of quantum systems remains structured and intelligible;
but the precise outcome of measurements introduces a probabilistic dimension that goes beyond our ordinary intuition.

In other words, causality is not abolished—it becomes more subtle.

In Summary #

Despite the criticisms, the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause remains, in my view, reasonably strong. It rests on a long philosophical tradition, on our constant experience of reality, and on the logical impossibility of something arising from absolute nothingness. The objections, serious though they are, do not succeed in showing that the premise is invalid—they merely call into question its applicability in extreme domains, such as the beginning of the universe.

In this context, the Kalam cosmological argument proposes a simple conclusion: if the universe really began to exist, then it owes its existence to a first cause, independent of space, time, and matter.