For the Kalam Argument, Bill Craig says that his argument is subject to the criticism that the cause of the universe might not exist anymore.
Could this possibly be true? Maybe
Likely? I don’t think so.
The cause that Craig discovers from the argument is that this cause is:
Timeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, unchanging, personal. and uncaused.
I think it would be unlikely that such a being would go out of existence. I lean towards it not being possible at all. Ceasing to exist has always been in the context of things that are changing, material, caused, and in time/space. So from experience, there is some doubt that such a being would cease to exist.
Logically, if something is unchanging, eternal, and timeless, it seems impossible to suggest that such a being can cease to exist because as a changeless being he can’t change. A change would be going from existing to not existing.
1. If a changeless being ceased to exist, then it wouldn’t be changeless.
2. Ceasing to exist is a change from existence to nonexistence
3. Therefore, a changeless being can’t cease to be existent
It seems then that the burden of proof would have to be on the person claiming that this being has gone out of existence, given that this is not obvious.
It should be noted that Craig doesn’t think that there is single proof that will get you to the Christian God he believes in. Also, he thinks that cosmological arguments aren’t worthless just because we don’t get straight to the God of Classical Theism. Rather he says, that we can have multiple arguments that establish God’s existence. Each argument reveals certain attributes or characteristics of God.
One final note, even if this being has ceased to exist, the argument would still be very effective as it relates to the worldview of naturalism. On naturalism, there are no beings that are immaterial.
1. On naturalism, the universe is all there is in reality (past, present, and future)
2. But if an immaterial being has existed or still exists, then naturalism is false.
3. An immaterial being has existed
4. Therefore, naturalism is false.
In conclusion, I don’t see any reason to conclude that such a being has gone out of existence and multiple reasons to think that such a being exists.