The Kalam Cosmological Argument Adapted to The Origin of a Living God

I have been considering and exploring the possibility that the personal Living God originates within the totality of “All Life On Earth in 4 Dimensions” (hereafter ALOE4D).  This seems to make better sense of what theology I know than that He originated outside of and before the beginning of the Big Bang universe.  I’m NOT necessarily denying that something about this ALOE4D God might have reached back to the beginning and played a role in creating both this universe and Itself.  I’m also NOT necessarily denying that this ALOE4D might in limited ways “guide” Its own and our Evolution.

I’m suggesting that the existence of ALOE4D in everyone living’s Eternal Past might explain some of the mystery of the elements of subjectivity we commonly refer to as spiritual and/or supernatural.  I’m suggesting that the perception of God by believers is not perception of something “outside” in the vast realms of Outer Space, but is rather perception of something seemingly deep within our minds as they connect to the very deep Eternal Past.  That we humans perceive God as personal can be explained by the fact that we connect to It through our human ancestors, who were and are human persons.  This also explains, perhaps, why God appears different to different people.

The family of cosmological arguments for the existence of God represent the misconception (as I see it) that God originated outside and before the Big Bang universe.  In general, these arguments claim that there has to be a First Cause of the universe and that that First Cause is God.  As an example, I’ll present the famous Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) as popularized and defended by William Lane Craig and as described in the Wikipedia article for “Kalam cosmological argument”.  I’ll attempt to show how the idea of a First Cause of everything that ever happened in the cosmos is questionable.  I’ll argue, on the other hand, that the idea of a First Parent of All Life on Earth makes perfect sense in the context of the origin of the ALOE4D God and simply leads to the conclusion that Abiogenesis (the production of Life from non-Life) happened on Earth.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA):

Premise 1.1:  Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

Premise 1.2:  The universe began to exist;


Conclusion 1:  The universe has a cause.

From the conclusion of the first syllogism, Craig constructs a second based upon an ontological analysis of the properties of the cause:

Premise 2.1:  The universe has a cause;

Premise 2.2:  If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;


Conclusion 2:  An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Even if we agree that the universe has a cause (which is a matter of Physics and is in nowise certain), the second syllogism and the KCA fail, in my opinion, due to the failure of Premise 2.2.  The “uncaused personal Creator”  is invented out of nothing and given attributes we have no reason to think anything that actually exists could have.  For a more detailed refutation of the KCA, I recommend the many excellent ones on YouTube.  My purpose here and now is not to refute it, but to show how much better it works in the context of the origin of ALOE4D than in the context of the origin of the universe:

Let’s transform the syllogisms by replacing the concept of “existence” with that of “living” and that of “cause” with that of “parent”.  We might call it:

The Kalam Biological Argument (KBA):

Premise 2.1.1:  Whatever begins to live has a parent(s).  (approximately the Law of Biogenesis).

Premise 2.1.2:  All Life On Earth in 4D (ALOE4D) began to live.  (ALOE4D is alive.)


Conclusion 2.1:  ALOE4D has a parent(s).

Continuing with the second syllogism:

Premise 2.2.1:  ALOE4D has a parent(s).

Premise 2.2.2:  If ALOE4D has a parent(s), then that(those) “parent(s)” must have been inanimate matter.  (Abiogenesis).


Conclusion 2.2:  The ultimate parent(s) of ALOE4D was(were) “inanimate” matter, “animated” only by the inanimate laws of Physics, Chemistry, etc. – proving Abiogenesis.

Right off the bat, Premise 2.1.1, that all living things have a parent(s) is more relatable to human experience of reality than the questionable corresponding premise of the KCA that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  It’s almost as if the author of the KCA was projecting the Law of Biogenesis (that applies only to life) upon the universe as a whole – albeit an understandable mistake.

The KBA leads smoothly and clearly to the conclusion of the second syllogism that there must have been an origin of Life on Earth from non-living matter (Abiogenesis).  There is no appeal to impossibly timeless, spaceless and immaterial entities of whose existence we can’t even conceive.  The whole new argument remains within the known universe and indeed within the context of planet Earth and its environs – which are incidentally all of the universe of which the author(s) of Genesis was(were) aware.

This to me is evidence that a Living God conceived as something to do with ALOE4D makes better sense of theology than a God conceived as some strange entity alien to not only Earth and Earth Life but also to even basics of existence in this universe like materiality, time and space.

While this might seem to some to diminish God’s grandeur, it actually promises to resolve confusion.  For example, it seems to explain and resolve the classical Logical Problem of Evil by explaining God’s lack of absolute, infinite and perfect omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.  This ALOE4D God might not, for example, have power over the laws of Physics and Chemistry, etc. that gave It life.

The ALOE4D monotheistic God can be identified as the immediate product of Abiogenesis and all of that product’s descendants, in 4 dimensions.  As such, we might well credit It with a share of every accomplishment of every living thing.  Ever.  This seems to fit a definition of “omnipotent” that is less than absolute, perfect and infinite, but that is still meaningful.

In principle, It exists in 4 dimensions from Abiogenesis several billion years ago until the “Lake of Fire” of the Sun expanding and consuming the Earth several billion years from now.  This makes it ultimately mortal.

At any given time, such as our Present, It may not know everything that will ever be known by any possible future Earth Life.  Still, it seems It may “know” everything known so far by any of the living things It comprises.  This defines a kind of “omniscience” that is, like Its omnipotence, less than absolute, perfect and infinite, but still meaningful.

Its influence is “present” in all Its descendants and thus It can be considered omnipresent in the living (and in the Eternal Past “afterlives” of all that ever lived).  As a kind of superorganism composed of all living things throughout time, It can be expected to be “omnibenevolent” to all Life on Earth, just as organisms like us might love and care about our children or, for that matter, the organs of which we’re composed.

In summary:  Translated from the KCA’s context of the origin of the universe to the context of the origin of life, the Kalam Biological Argument proves Abiogenesis to be the “First Parent” of all Life on Earth.  God conceived of as ALOE4D qualifies to be considered omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not absolutely, perfectly or infinitely so.  That Its omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence are relative and not absolutely “perfect” saves this (ALOE4D) God from the criticisms of the classical Logical Problem of Evil.  This Theodicy (answer to the Problem of Evil) follows naturally from our conception of this God as ultimately finite, mortal and imperfect.  This incidentally gives all of us and It some things in common.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s