Abstract

In this paper I shall consider the similarities and differences in the cosmological argumentation on the existence of God between the 9th-century Muslim philosopher al-Kindi and contemporary Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. My focus here will not be on the value and soundness of their argumentation, but only on the structure and type of their arguments. The credit for this argumentation's reappearance in the modern thought belongs to Craig, who referred to it, above all, in his book Kalam Cosmological Argument (1979). The basic elements of their general form of argument can be found in the works of the 6th-century Christian philosopher John Philoponus. All major steps of Craig's kalam cosmological argumentation can be found in al-Kindi's works. Bearing in mind his large opus on the kalam cosmological argument, it is surprising to see Craig writing that this argument is 'extremely simple', and has the form as follows: 1. Everything that begins to exist has its cause. 2. The world began to exist. 3. Therefore, the world has its cause. Generally considered we might think that a better way to express this argumentation would follow three major steps: 1. First, it has to be proved that the world is not eternal, or that it began to exist. 2. Second, that the world does not come to exist by itself, but that it has a cause of its beginning. 3. Third, that cause of the beginning of its existence is an orthodoxly conceived monotheistic God. Philoponus gives his arguments only for the first two steps of this argumentation. Al-Kindi presents his arguments for all three steps. Craig, in essence, repeates al-Kindi's arguments, but adds some convergent arguments that are based on two contemporary scientific theories, unknown during Philoponus and al-Kindi's times: Big Bang cosmological theory and the second law of thermodyamics.