The Cosmological Argument in Islam

Looking for an explanation of the universe

The cosmological argument reasons from the existence or beginning of the universe to a cause beyond it. Rather than asking whether nature looks designed, it asks why the universe exists at all. Muslims who accept the argument identify its ultimate cause as Allah.

In everyday life, things that begin to exist have causes: a building exists because people constructed it using materials. Those people and materials also have earlier explanations. The cosmological argument asks whether tracing causes backwards can explain the universe, or whether an ultimate first cause is needed. Everyday examples make the reasoning understandable, but applying it to the universe as a whole is a further claim that needs defending.

Al-Ghazali and the kalam argument

Al-Ghazali was an influential Sunni Muslim scholar of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries. He used reasoning in the service of Islamic theology. Kalam is the tradition of using rational arguments to explain and defend religious beliefs; it is not simply another word for the cosmological argument.

His writings include Kitab al-Iqtisad fi’l-I‘tiqad, translated as Moderation in Belief. In the First Proposition on God's existence, he writes: “The existence in time of every temporal thing has a cause; the world exists in time; therefore, it follows necessarily from this that [the world] has a cause.” Here, a temporal thing is something that begins to exist in time. By the “world”, he means everything other than God, not merely planet Earth.

The central kalam reasoning can therefore be expressed in three steps:

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

The first two statements are premises: starting claims on which the conclusion depends. If both are true, the conclusion follows. However, someone can challenge the argument by questioning either premise.

Al-Ghazali distinguishes observing the physical world from reasoning about its creator. We perceive physical bodies and their changing properties through the senses, but Allah is not a physical body occupying space. His argument seeks to establish Allah's existence through reason, rather than by treating Allah as an observable object within the universe.

Why the first cause has no beginning

Muslim supporters argue that the explanation cannot simply be another caused thing needing an earlier cause. They identify an uncaused first cause as Allah.

In the Second Proposition of Moderation in Belief, al-Ghazali argues that the originator of the world must have no beginning. If this originator also began, it would require another originator, which would in turn require another, and so on without end. He therefore understands God's beginninglessness as essential to God's nature, not something acquired later.

Allah does not begin to exist, so the first premise does not require Allah to have a cause. This distinction is central: the argument says that things which begin need causes, not that absolutely everything needs one.

What the argument suggests about Allah

For Muslim supporters, the argument presents Allah as the creator, whose power accounts for the existence of the universe. Allah is eternal and independent, rather than one more dependent object within creation. Describing Allah as a necessary being means that Allah's existence does not depend on anything else and cannot fail to exist.

Allah is also understood as transcendent: beyond the universe and not limited by its physical laws. An explanation of the universe is therefore not expected to be just another physical event inside it.

These ideas fit Qur’anic teaching. Qur’an 112:1–4 describes Allah as one and eternal, neither begetting nor being begotten, with no equal. Qur’an 2:117 describes Allah as the originator of the heavens and the earth, who commands, “Be,” and it is. Muslims connect these passages with an eternal creator who creates through divine will and power.

Muslims may also connect creation with Allah's benevolence. Qur’an 79:27–33 describes water, pastures and other features of the world provided for humans and animals. However, the conclusion that the universe has a cause does not, by itself, establish that this cause is loving, answers prayer or has every attribute described in Islam. Those fuller claims also draw on revelation.

Why Muslims differ over its strength

Some Muslims value the cosmological argument because it gives a rational explanation for belief in Allah rather than relying only on religious authority. Cause and effect are familiar features of experience, and a first cause offers an answer to the question of why anything exists.

Some also regard it as compatible with scientific accounts of the universe's early development. They can understand Allah as the cause of the Big Bang, while science explains physical processes. On this view, scientific explanation and belief in a creator need not compete. Nevertheless, compatibility with science is not the same as scientific proof that Allah exists.

Muslim thinkers have not always agreed that the universe began. The medieval Muslim philosopher al-Farabi taught that the world had no beginning in the past, contrasting with al-Ghazali's defence of creation in time. This matters because a beginningless universe would challenge the second premise of the kalam argument. Disagreement about this particular argument does not automatically mean rejection of Allah.

Muslims can also differ over how far philosophical reasoning should support faith. Al-Ghazali's Moderation in Belief treats theological reasoning as important, but also distinguishes those for whom engaging in it is appropriate from those who should avoid it. Valuing reason does not require every believer to build their faith around a philosophical proof.

Non-religious challenges and Muslim responses

“What caused Allah?” An atheist or Humanist may argue that introducing Allah only moves the problem back one stage. Muslim supporters reply that Allah is eternal and uncaused: the premise applies only to things that begin. This answers the charge that the argument explicitly requires a cause for Allah, although a critic may still ask why a beginningless creator is a better explanation than a beginningless universe.

“Why could the universe not be eternal?” A critic may reject the claim that the universe began and argue that no first cause is needed. Muslim defenders maintain that the universe had a beginning and therefore requires a cause. Some regard the Big Bang account as supporting this belief. However, an account of the universe's early development does not itself settle every question about its ultimate origin. The disagreement shows why the second premise must be justified rather than merely repeated.

“Causes inside the universe do not prove a cause of the whole universe.” We observe particular objects and events having causes. A non-religious critic can argue that this does not establish that the universe itself has one. Muslim supporters reply that the universe's existence still calls for an explanation, not just explanations of its individual parts. The question is whether the familiar causal principle can legitimately be applied to the universe as a whole.

“A cause need not be Allah.” Even someone who accepts that the universe has a cause may deny that it must be a personal God, or specifically Allah. Muslims respond that an eternal, transcendent creator with the power to produce the universe fits their understanding of Allah. Qur’an 29:20 affirms God's power over all things. However, the critic can reasonably distinguish an unidentified cause from the fuller Islamic understanding of Allah: showing that Allah could create the universe does not independently prove that only Allah could be its cause.

Atheists and Humanists need not deny that the universe has an explanation. They may instead argue that the evidence does not justify a supernatural explanation, or that an unanswered question is not proof of Allah.

Reaching a justified judgement

A balanced judgement separates three questions: does the universe have a beginning, does that beginning require a cause, and does that cause have to be Allah? A Muslim may find the argument persuasive when combined with Qur’anic teaching. A critic may accept some of the reasoning while rejecting the final identification.

For example, one defensible conclusion is that kalam offers a coherent rational argument for a creator, but does not independently establish all Muslim beliefs about Allah. A stronger claim that it proves Allah's existence needs to defend both premises and explain why alternative accounts of the cause are inadequate.

Recall the kalam argument

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

Muslim supporters identify the uncaused first cause as Allah. Allah is eternal, so does not fall under the first premise.

Named reference: al-Ghazali, Kitab al-Iqtisad fi’l-I‘tiqad (Moderation in Belief).

• First Proposition: the world exists in time and therefore has a cause; the creator is established through reason, not physical observation.
• Second Proposition: the originator has no beginning, otherwise another originator would be needed, and so on without end.

Nature of Allah

• Creator and omnipotent: explains the universe's existence.
• Eternal and independent: does not begin or depend on another cause.
• Transcendent: beyond the physical universe.
• Qur’an 112:1–4: Allah is one, eternal and without equal.
• Qur’an 2:117: Allah creates by commanding “Be”.

A first cause alone does not establish every divine attribute; fuller Muslim beliefs also draw on revelation.

Strengths and disagreements

• Offers a rational explanation based on cause and effect.
• Fits Muslim belief in creation and can coexist with scientific explanations.
• Al-Farabi's belief in a beginningless world contrasts with al-Ghazali's defence of creation in time.
• Muslims differ over how much weight philosophical reasoning should carry in faith.

Challenge → response

• Who caused Allah? → Allah never began; the premise does not apply.
• Why not an eternal universe? → Supporters defend the universe's beginning; this premise remains disputed.
• Parts have causes, but must the whole? → Supporters argue that the universe itself needs explanation.
• Why must the cause be Allah? → Muslims connect an eternal, powerful creator with Allah; critics say that this identification needs further evidence.

Judgement: assess the premises and the identification of the cause separately. Scientific compatibility is not proof of Allah.