The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument

 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Alvin Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument stand as two of the most influential and rigorously defended arguments for God's existence in contemporary philosophy of religion. Both aim to establish a transcendent, necessary being—commonly identified as God—but they differ sharply in approach: the Kalam is empirical and causal, drawing on the universe's beginning, while Plantinga's ontological argument is purely a priori, rooted in modal logic and the concept of maximal greatness.
These arguments are especially valuable for theology students, as they bridge philosophy and theology, offering rational support for classical theism without relying solely on revelation.The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentRevived and popularized by William Lane Craig, the Kalam draws from medieval Islamic theology (kalām means "speech" or scholastic theology in Arabic), particularly thinkers like al-Ghazali. Craig's formulation is concise:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 appeals to intuition and everyday experience: things do not pop into being uncaused. A chair begins to exist because a carpenter assembles it; a building requires builders. The causal principle is metaphysical, not merely scientific—nothing comes from nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit).
Premise 2 is defended philosophically and scientifically. Philosophically, Craig argues an actual infinite past is impossible. An "actual infinite" (like an infinite set of real events) leads to absurdities. Consider Hilbert's Hotel: an infinite hotel fully occupied can still accommodate new guests by shifting everyone (room 1 to 2, 2 to 3, etc.), yet remains full—illustrating counterintuitive paradoxes. Successive addition (events accumulating one by one) cannot form an actual infinite; you never "arrive" at infinity.
Scientifically, the Big Bang theory supports a finite past. Standard models show the universe expanding from a singularity ~13.8 billion years ago, implying a beginning. Entropy and the second law of thermodynamics also suggest a finite timeline—no eternal steady state.The cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial (beyond the universe), immensely powerful, and personal. Why personal? Impersonal causes (laws of nature) act deterministically; a beginning requires free, willed action—like an agent deciding to create.
Easy example for students: Imagine a row of dominoes falling. Each domino begins falling because the previous one knocks it over (premise 1). If the row extends infinitely backward, no first domino starts the chain—yet they fall! The universe's chain of events needs a first, uncaused cause outside the chain: God.
Critics challenge premise 1 (quantum events appear uncaused) or premise 2 (multiverse or cyclic models allow infinite pasts). Defenders reply quantum events occur within spacetime frameworks, not from nothing, and multiverses remain speculative.Plantinga's Modal Ontological ArgumentAlvin Plantinga reformulates Anselm's classic ontological argument using modal logic (possibility/necessity) and possible worlds semantics. A "possible world" is a complete way reality could be—maximally consistent descriptions.Plantinga defines:

• Maximal excellence: Omnipotence, omniscience, moral perfection in a given world.
• Maximal greatness: Maximal excellence in every possible world (necessary existence).

The argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists. (A being with maximal greatness is possible in some possible world.)
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then there exists a possible world in which a maximally great being exists.
3. A maximally great being has maximal excellence in every possible world (by definition).
4. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in every possible world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. (God exists.)

In modal terms: If possibly necessarily God exists, then necessarily God exists (S5 axiom: ◊□P → □P).
Easy example for students: Think of a perfect island (Anselm's parody critique). It might be possible, but perfection doesn't require necessary existence—an island could fail to exist in some worlds. God differs: maximal greatness includes necessary existence. If even possible, God must exist everywhere, like 2+2=4 holds in all worlds. Denying it is like denying squares have four sides—logically incoherent if the concept is coherent.
Plantinga concludes the argument is valid; soundness depends on premise 1. If God's existence is epistemically possible (no contradiction in the concept), the argument succeeds for the believer. He views it as showing God's existence is rational, not coercive proof.Critics argue premise 1 begs the question or that maximal greatness might be incoherent (e.g., omnipotence paradoxes). Parodies replace God with a "maximally great devil," but these fail because greatness includes moral perfection. Others claim possibility doesn't entail necessity without accepting S5.
Using e-Consciousness to analyse the argument.
The reframed argument proceeds as an 8-step conscious journey:

1. Eliminate — Eliminate the illusion of impossibility
   Remove logical contradictions, conceptual barriers, or skeptical objections that block the very idea of a Maximally Great Being (e.g., square-circle incoherencies, omnipotence paradoxes, or claims that necessary existence is absurd). Clear the mental space: there is no inherent contradiction in conceiving a being that possesses maximal excellence (omniscience, omnipotence, perfect goodness) in every possible world. Thus, it becomes rationally coherent to affirm:
   "It is possible that a Maximally Great Being exists."
2. Exchange — Exchange contingency for necessity
   Replace the limited, contingent view of greatness (a being excellent only in some worlds or moments) with the fuller concept of greatness that includes necessary existence across all possible worlds. Swap partial or accidental excellence for maximal greatness, where existence is not a contingent fact but an essential property — because a being that could fail to exist is less great than one that cannot.
3. Energise — Energise the possibility with modal vitality
   Infuse the bare possibility with dynamic force through modal logic (S5 axioms): if something is possible, there is at least one possible world where it obtains. Energize the premise into actuality in thought — a Maximally Great Being must exist in some possible world, charged with the full scope of its perfections.
4. Empathy — Empathise with the perspective of necessary existence
   Place yourself in relational awareness with the concept: understand from "within" what it means for a being to possess maximal excellence universally. Empathize with the coherence of such a being's self-perspective — it cannot "lack" existence in any world without ceasing to be itself. This empathetic alignment reveals that if the MGB exists in even one world, its nature demands it exists in all.
5. Encourage — Encourage the transition to necessity
   Motivate the logical entailment forward: do not halt at isolated possibility. Encourage the mind to follow the implication — if maximal greatness obtains anywhere, it must obtain everywhere (by definition). This encouragement bridges the modal gap, pushing awareness toward the conclusion that the MGB's existence is not optional.
6. Esteem — Esteem the unsurpassable value in the actual world
   Honor and value the MGB's greatness as the highest conceivable reality. Esteem necessary existence as the pinnacle of value — a being whose non-existence is impossible is worthy of ultimate respect. Because the actual world is one among all possible worlds, esteem requires acknowledging that this unsurpassably great reality is present here and now.
7. Endure — Endure the implications through doubt and resistance
   Persist in holding the conclusion amid counterarguments, emotional resistance, or philosophical pushback (e.g., "But I don't perceive it directly"). Endure the transformative weight: if the MGB exists necessarily, then conscious awareness of it is not optional — it grounds and sustains all finite consciousness, calling for ongoing alignment.
8. Eternal — Eternal focus: affirm the timeless reality
   Orient consciousness toward the eternal truth — the Maximally Great Being is not a temporary or contingent entity, but the eternal, necessary ground of being, value, and consciousness itself. In this final step, the argument culminates: a Maximally Great Being exists (necessarily, actually, and eternally).

Thus, in E-Consciousness terms:

By systematically applying the eight E's to the modal structure of Plantinga's argument, the mind moves from eliminative clarity through relational and motivational stages to an enduring, eternal recognition. The conclusion is no longer a detached logical deduction but a transformed state of awareness: the necessary existence of God (the MGB) emerges as the conscious telos — the ultimate object and source — of fully aligned E-Consciousness.

Comparison and Theological Relevance

• Method: Kalam is a posteriori (relies on evidence of the universe's beginning); ontological is a priori (pure reason).
• Focus: Kalam emphasizes causation and the universe's contingency; ontological stresses necessity and greatness.
• Strengths: Kalam aligns with science (Big Bang), making it accessible; ontological is elegant, avoiding empirical disputes.
• Weaknesses: Kalam faces scientific counter-theories; ontological seems abstract, accused of word-magic.
• Complementarity: Many (e.g., Craig) use both—Kalam shows a personal Creator; ontological shows necessity.

For theology students, these arguments demonstrate faith's reasonableness. The Kalam portrays God as Creator ex nihilo; Plantinga's as necessary ground of being. Together, they counter naturalism, showing theism as philosophically viable. Neither "proves" God deductively for all, but they render atheism less plausible, inviting deeper reflection on existence, necessity, and ultimate reality.References

• Craig, William Lane. The Kalām Cosmological Argument. London: Macmillan Press, 1979. (Reprinted by Wipf and Stock, 2000.)
• Craig, William Lane, and James D. Sinclair. "The Kalam Cosmological Argument." In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, 101–201. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
• Copan, Paul, and William Lane Craig, eds. The Kalām Cosmological Argument, Volume 1: Philosophical Arguments for the Finitude of the Past. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
• Copan, Paul, and William Lane Craig, eds. The Kalām Cosmological Argument, Volume 2: Scientific Evidence for the Beginning of the Universe. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017.
• Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. (Especially Chapter 10 on the ontological argument.)
• Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. (Includes a concise presentation of the modal ontological argument.)