Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Classical Kalam of the Mutakallimun: A Comparative Philosophical and Metaphysical Study
Abstract
This research paper delivers an in‑depth comparative analysis of two widely discussed formulations of the cosmological argument: the modern Kalam Cosmological Argument popularized by William Lane Craig and the authentic or classical Kalam argument developed by medieval Islamic theologians (mutakallimun). The study aims to clarify misinterpretations in contemporary philosophy of religion by reconstructing the traditional argument from its sources, identifying key philosophical distinctions between Craig’s version and the classical formulation, and exploring metaphysical issues concerning causality, infinity, and volitional agency. The research demonstrates that the classical mutakallimun argument offers a richer metaphysical conclusion—affirming the existence of a unique, volitional, necessary being—than Craig’s minimalistic syllogism, which arrives at a generic cause. The paper also examines the historical development of infinity, from early blanket rejection to Imam al‑Taftazani’s conceptual refinement, distinguishing abstract (mathematical) and concrete (real) infinity. It connects this distinction to modern mathematics via Cantor’s set theory and Hilbert’s Hotel. A comparative table summarizing the differences between Craig’s and classical Kalam arguments is included. Classical and modern sources are cited to ground the analysis in textual authority.
Keywords: Kalam cosmological argument, mutakallimun, William Lane Craig, necessary being, volitional cause, actual infinity, abstract versus concrete infinity, Hilbert’s Hotel, Cantor’s set theory, philosophical theology.
