Explicit atheism is a philosophical position according to which belief in God is irrational, and thus it should be rejected. In this paper, I revisit, extend, and defend against the most telling counter arguments the Kalām Cosmological Argument in order to show that explicit atheism must be deemed as a positively irrational position.The following will give the reader a sense of déjà vu: The traditional arguments for atheism have been fairly thoroughly criticized by theologians. But atheists can, if they wish, accept the criticisms. They may point out that no rational proof of God's existence is possible, and thereby maintain that the rational default position is atheism. I think, however, that a more telling criticism can be made by way of the Kalām Cosmological Argument. Here it can be shown not that explicit atheism lacks rational support, but that it is positively irrational, so that atheists can maintain their position by an extreme rejection of rational evidence for the existence of God. They must now be prepared to deny, not merely what can be proven, but what can be disproven. Yes, the foregoing mimics the introductory section to J. L. Mackie's famous 1955 paper 'Evil and Omnipotence. ' (1955: 200) In his paper, Mackie attempts to show that religious belief is irrational on the basis of the traditional problem of evil. In what is to follow, I shall not attempt to say anything about the problem of evil. Rather, I would like to revisit and extend the Kalām Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (henceforth Kalām). 1 Kalām is a deceptively simple syllogism but in reality, it is a complex, and a sound, argument. Since Kalām is sound, this implies that explicit atheism 2 is irrational.
THE ARGUMENT AND PRELIMINARY REMARKSAccording to Kalām, the universe is not and cannot be eternal. Rather, the universe came into existence by something else. The argument can be expressed as a simple syllogism. For this reason, some critics lament that Kalām is a swift argument (Taylor 1997). On the contrary, it is far from being swift. As I will illustrate, Kalām is supported by compelling philosophical argumentation as well as scientific evidence. According to the version of Kalām that I present here, everything that begins to exist is brought into existence by something else. Furthermore,