A logical proof that existence is caused by something outside of existence.

Preface

A topic that’s been debated for thousands of years in philosophy is whether or not our existence is caused by something else, or just is. This tends to be an important question in people’s core beliefs, as its answer is what makes you atheist, agnostic, theist, or deist. The “external cause” after all is probably the most fundamental attribute of a God or a creator, as it determines its existence or not.

I should state upfront however that I will not be using any religious arguments or “divine revelation” here. I also do not wish to get into religious arguments from this. Through pure logic alone, I will strengthen The Kalam Cosmological Argument and prove that an external cause logically must exist. I also will not be proving any other attributes commonly associated with the concept of God, such as it being an infinitely good being, or any of the omni-attributes. Any reference to God or external creator in this text thus has a single attribute: it caused our existence.

Background

One of the most well known arguments for the existence of another cause is from Aristotle and his Unmoved/Prime Mover Argument.

The argument Aristotle makes can roughly be boiled down to this:

1. Something in motion can only be in motion due to another cause, ie. another object in motion
2. There is an infinite chain of motion causing motion within our existence
3. The infinite chain of motion causing motion itself must have a cause
4. The cause must be itself unmovable, since if it is moved, then it also must have a cause
5. The cause must be able to initiate the chain of motion without moving itself
6. The cause of motion is the unmoved mover

Aristotle essentially points out that one of the laws within our existence seems to exist never-endingly, and that nothing within our existence could have caused that. Within our realm of existence, anything that imparts motion onto another object must be in motion itself. Therefore since motion exists, something must have begun that motion: the unmoved mover.

This is the argument that gave birth to other cosmological arguments. One of them being the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

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

This argument is a deductive argument, and if the premises hold true, then it is absolutely necessary that the conclusion follows.

Note: The word “universe” in this case really means “existence”. If it turns out that there exists “multiple universes”, then this argument will simply change to encompass all universes that exist.

Now, since the conclusion to the Cosmological argument follows necessarily, objections to the argument happen within the premises:

• Why is it necessary that everything that begins to exist has a cause? Can’t the universe just exist without a cause?
• Did the universe conceptually “begin”, or does it “just exist”?

And these are valid objections to the arguments.

Or, are they? (for illustrative purposes, please imagine Michael from VSauce saying this).

Strengthening The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I will strengthen the argument here by refuting both objections to the first two premises. It requires a chain of rebuttals across multiple smaller arguments, so bear with me.

I am also changing the word “universe” to “reality”, and I’m defining it like this:

Reality encompasses all laws, space, and material. This includes things such as gravity, light, physics, logic, the universe or multiverses, and particles.

By definition, we can also state that the only enumerable possibilities for cause are:

1. External cause (outside of reality)
2. Internal cause (inside of reality)
3. No cause (it just is)

Now, let’s rebut the 2nd and 3rd possibilities.

The Rebuttal

The rebuttal here is fairly simple at a high level:

1. Reality isn’t caused by external cause
2. Reality must then have an internal cause or no cause
   1. Objection: there cannot be an internal cause
   2. Objection: there cannot be no cause
3. Due to the objections, it is impossible for reality to have an internal cause or no cause, therefore it must have an external cause

If we can confidently object both the internal cause and no cause possibilities, then that leaves us with only external cause. Below are the objections in detail, which show that the conclusion is logically necessary.

Objection Against the Internal Cause

The concept of an internal cause creates a logical contradiction:

1. If reality has an internal cause, then something within reality caused reality to exist
2. For something within reality to cause reality, that something must have existed before reality
3. But if something exists before reality, then it exists outside of reality (by definition)
4. This contradicts the premise that reality has only an internal cause with no external cause
5. Therefore, reality cannot have an internal cause

Objection Against no Cause

1. Reality has no cause
2. Reality also has no external cause
3. Reality is therefore a closed system
4. Reality therefore must contain a complete set of axioms which describe itself
5. Reality is thus subject to Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems
6. Reality is then logically incomplete or inconsistent
7. If reality is incomplete, there exist true statements about reality that cannot be proven within reality’s own logical framework
8. If reality is inconsistent, then reality contains contradictions, making it fundamentally unreliable
9. In either case, reality cannot fully account for its own existence from within itself
10. Therefore, reality must have an external cause

Miscellaneous Objections

Common objections that are illogical and aren’t core to the main argument fall here. It’s worth touching upon them as they’re often used to dismiss the argument.

The Endless Chain of Creators

If a creator exists, what created it? There must be an infinite number of creators!

This is a categorical error and touching on this argument is great for understanding higher-order categorization.

The failure here has to do with assuming that a creator must follow our reality’s laws. This is not true. By definition the creator is outside of our reality. We know that we are caused by a creator because it is the only possible choice due to how our reality is structured. The creator that exists outside of reality could have different rules. It is impossible for us to comprehend what they may or may not be since we can’t break out of our own reality. Our logic works within our own reality but doesn’t necessarily apply to anything above our reality.

For example:

A video game creator creates a game world, and inside the game it has the following law:

• You must eat cakes to gain Health points

In the eyes of a video game character, they become more healthier by eating cakes. Their health is a simple point system. The video game character is programmed in a way where this is the only possible way it could understand health. Its understanding of health however does not apply to the creator, whom unfortunately can’t just eat infinite cakes and has to do other things to care for their health.

Therefore, it’s only safe to say that it is possible that there could be a chain of creators, but not necessary. It is not logically comprehensible for us to know what the answer is here, and people tend to pick them based off of personal belief rather than logic.

Science Always Fills in the Gaps, We Don’t Need Your God of the Gaps!

This objection misunderstands the nature of the argument presented here. The “God of the gaps” fallacy occurs when someone uses “we don’t know” as evidence for God’s existence. However, this argument is not based on ignorance—it’s based on logical necessity.

Science helps us understand our observable reality and it does sometimes replace religious understandings, but it cannot solve everything. Since Science deals with what we observe, it struggles to deal with things we can’t observe. Science cannot answer questions about what exists outside of reality itself, because:

1. Science operates within reality’s framework: All scientific methods, observations, and experiments occur within reality. Science can tell us about how reality works, but it cannot investigate what exists outside of reality’s laws, space, and material.

2. The question is meta-scientific: The question “what caused reality?” is not a scientific question—it’s a philosophical and logical one. Science studies phenomena within reality, but the existence of reality itself is not a phenomenon that can be observed or tested scientifically.

3. This is not an argument from ignorance: The argument here doesn’t say “we don’t know what caused reality, therefore God.” Instead, it demonstrates through logical deduction that:
   • Reality cannot have an internal cause (logical impossibility)
   • Reality cannot have no cause (leads to logical incompleteness/inconsistency)
   • Therefore, reality must have an external cause (logical necessity)
4. Science will never fill this gap: This isn’t a gap in our knowledge that future scientific discoveries could fill. It’s a structural limitation: by definition, science studies what exists within reality, so it can never study what exists outside of reality. No amount of scientific progress can change this fundamental constraint.

The external cause is not a placeholder for scientific ignorance—it’s a logical conclusion that follows necessarily from the structure of reality itself.