Common Objections to Kalam: Part 6: The Universe and the Sum Totality of Existence
This objection is perhaps the worst, but since we are cataloguing rather common objections to Kalam, we should toss the following one into the mix. This objection goes something like this: The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument seems to put God in a rather difficult place when one considers that the word ‘universe’ means the totality of all that exists. God would be something that exists and so given that the universe began to exist [or all that exists began to exist], God too would begin to exist since God would be an existing thing.
The obvious problem with this objection is in defining the universe as all that exists rather than just the stuff of atoms, electrons, and their interaction. This is without a doubt the worst objection to Kalam besides the famous, “Who caused God?” I posted this both because I’ve seen this objection pop up two or three times in the past week and because it provides a bit of comic relief for our dismal absence. That will hopefully change soon.
1. Thank you to Theo Warner for pointing out an issue of clarity on my part.