WJEC Eduqas A level Religious Studies exemplar essay
The Kalam cosmological argument is convincing. (30)
The Kalam cosmological argument originated with Christian theologians who sought to challenge the
Greek doctrine of the eternity of matter and was later developed by Islamic scholars in the 9 th and
11th centuries CE. The Kalam cosmological argument bases itself on the impossibility of the universe
being infinite as the universe had a beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was influenced by
the Greek Philosopher Aristotle and proposed Five Ways, the first three of which forms the
cosmological argument in Summa Theologica. Christian apologist William Craig revives the
cosmological argument and rejects the concept of actual infinities and posits the requirement of a
personal agent (God) for the existence of the universe. The word “convincing” is defined as being
able to persuade someone to change their opinion. This essay will conclude that the Kalam
cosmological argument is convincing.
The Kalam cosmological argument is an inductive, posteriori argument that originated with Christian
theologians who sought to challenge Greek doctrine of eternity and matter and bases itself on the
impossibility of the universe being infinite as the universe had a beginning. Craig’s version posits the
need of a personal agent which in this case is God. The word Kalam means ‘to argue or discuss’. The
Kalam cosmological argument was discovered from the work of Islamic scholars in the 9th and 11th
centuries CE. It has been modernised and revived by the Christian apologist, William Lane Craig
The Kalam cosmological argument is not convincing because it is not possible to prove that God does
not exist. B. Russell took the position of an agnostic as he accepted that following the rules of the
Logical positivists, he reasoned that being necessary applies to logical ideas or any analytical
propositions and concluded that the universe is “just there”. Therefore, it is illogical to argue that
everything has a cause except God.
However, in 1993, William Craig stipulated the argument that everything that begins to exist has a
cause of its existence. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence since there is no scientific
explanation to provide a causal account. As there is no causal account of the origin of the universe,
the cause must have been a personal choice. This indicates that God willingly chose to make the
universe as he is the only viable personal agent who has the power and ability to create the universe
and is capable of existing outside the universe. Therefore, the personal creator of the universe is
God, who sustains the universe.
The Kalam cosmological argument is not convincing because science is a better explanation for the
existence of the universe as to create a theory such as the Big Bang and evolution. For example,
Darwin’s ideas of natural selection are more convincing as people can evaluate the evidence and
they can see that it is a fact and not a theory. Furthermore, scientists are able to measure the CMBR
(Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) to trace the origin of the Big Bang to 13.8 billion years
ago. Therefore, science provides evidence and is supported by millions of examples, indicating that
the Kalam cosmological argument is not convincing.
David Hume says that even if God could be accepted as the cause of the universe, there is no way to
determine what sort of God this would be. This suggests that the logical conclusion can lead to
several gods. Therefore, it does not lead to one undeniable truth and is not convincing because it is
The Kalam cosmological argument is convincing. (30)
The Kalam cosmological argument originated with Christian theologians who sought to challenge the
Greek doctrine of the eternity of matter and was later developed by Islamic scholars in the 9 th and
11th centuries CE. The Kalam cosmological argument bases itself on the impossibility of the universe
being infinite as the universe had a beginning. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was influenced by
the Greek Philosopher Aristotle and proposed Five Ways, the first three of which forms the
cosmological argument in Summa Theologica. Christian apologist William Craig revives the
cosmological argument and rejects the concept of actual infinities and posits the requirement of a
personal agent (God) for the existence of the universe. The word “convincing” is defined as being
able to persuade someone to change their opinion. This essay will conclude that the Kalam
cosmological argument is convincing.
The Kalam cosmological argument is an inductive, posteriori argument that originated with Christian
theologians who sought to challenge Greek doctrine of eternity and matter and bases itself on the
impossibility of the universe being infinite as the universe had a beginning. Craig’s version posits the
need of a personal agent which in this case is God. The word Kalam means ‘to argue or discuss’. The
Kalam cosmological argument was discovered from the work of Islamic scholars in the 9th and 11th
centuries CE. It has been modernised and revived by the Christian apologist, William Lane Craig
The Kalam cosmological argument is not convincing because it is not possible to prove that God does
not exist. B. Russell took the position of an agnostic as he accepted that following the rules of the
Logical positivists, he reasoned that being necessary applies to logical ideas or any analytical
propositions and concluded that the universe is “just there”. Therefore, it is illogical to argue that
everything has a cause except God.
However, in 1993, William Craig stipulated the argument that everything that begins to exist has a
cause of its existence. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence since there is no scientific
explanation to provide a causal account. As there is no causal account of the origin of the universe,
the cause must have been a personal choice. This indicates that God willingly chose to make the
universe as he is the only viable personal agent who has the power and ability to create the universe
and is capable of existing outside the universe. Therefore, the personal creator of the universe is
God, who sustains the universe.
The Kalam cosmological argument is not convincing because science is a better explanation for the
existence of the universe as to create a theory such as the Big Bang and evolution. For example,
Darwin’s ideas of natural selection are more convincing as people can evaluate the evidence and
they can see that it is a fact and not a theory. Furthermore, scientists are able to measure the CMBR
(Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation) to trace the origin of the Big Bang to 13.8 billion years
ago. Therefore, science provides evidence and is supported by millions of examples, indicating that
the Kalam cosmological argument is not convincing.
David Hume says that even if God could be accepted as the cause of the universe, there is no way to
determine what sort of God this would be. This suggests that the logical conclusion can lead to
several gods. Therefore, it does not lead to one undeniable truth and is not convincing because it is
