A Mathematician Reads the Kalam Cosmological Argument

TL;DR

This paper critically examines the kalam cosmological argument, challenging its claim that an actual infinite in the physical world is impossible, and highlights the disconnect between scientific and philosophical perspectives.

Contribution

It provides a rigorous mathematical critique of the argument's metaphysical premises, emphasizing their optional and flawed nature compared to other established claims.

Findings

The claim of the impossibility of actual infinities is flawed.

Mathematicians and physicists find the critique straightforward.

Philosophers show resistance, indicating a communication gap.

Abstract

Some Christian apologists, notably William Lane Craig, have championed something called the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God. One version of the argument leans heavily on the claim that the existence of an actual infinite in the physical world is a metaphysical impossibility. We strongly criticize this claim, showing that it involves dogmatically insisting that certain metaphysical premises are absolutely inviolable, when in fact said premises are not only optional, but are far flimsier than other metaphysical claims (eventually shown to be untenable) that great thinkers of the past, including Einstein, have misguidedly clung to. While our criticisms strike most mathematicians and physicists as straightforward and uncontroversial, they have encountered resistance from philosophers, suggesting that there is a communication gap between the scientific and philosophical communities. We hope this paper will help bridge that gap.