The Kalam Cosmological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

DefinitionsKCA [1]: P1 Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;P2 The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore:C The universe has a cause of its existence.(C2) (therefore, god(s)) The Universe The sum total of things, and the rules which govern their interactions, and the place in which those interactions happen. It has not been established that things with beginnings to their existence have causes The beginning of the majority of things which exist has not been observed as having a cause OR not having a cause Conservation of energy in general relativity demands that energy is neither created or destroyed. This implies that the stuff or phenomena which comprise the energy which comprise the massive objects is itself neither created nor destroyed. In fact, the first law of thermodynamics demands that while things may change their form and the way they are organized over time, the stuff itself has ALWAYS been there. In average, this is even true under the laws of quantum mechanics. Indeed, every understanding of stellar nucleosynthesis, fusion, fission, and even the operation of nuclear energy production all rely on this principle. Even the “big bang” has not been proposed as a beginning of the stuff; stuff that was already there merely began to expand. [2][3] Many observed absolute beginnings have no cause Virtual particles are a well established concept in quantum physics. While historically the idea has been viewed with skepticism, almost all modern understandings of quantum physics not only support but demand that they exist; the things we observe could simply not happen without them, for example such things as release of photons, radioactive decay, or even grease sticking to a metal frying pan. But prescient here is the more important factor that small fluctuations of energy, called particles by physicists, constantly appear and disappear at random everywhere. Most importantly, however, is that they have no observable cause. [4] While there are other events in physics, with uncaused characteristics (such as probability wave collapse, the particular way a given event “shakes out”) I will not bring them up at this time. Induction does not provide an absolute answer for future events (Hume) The KCA makes certain assumptions that things which are observed in the future will be consistent with things that have been observed in the past. Any such assumption has a quantifiable level of uncertainty, and while various observations can be identified as having a very low uncertainty, the uncertainty remains, not only in the possibility of an event but also in our possibility of having made errors in observation. While I generally tend to agree with the proposition that a given level of certainty constitutes “knowledge”, this does mean that regardless of what percentage of observed particles we have seen “begin” with or without cause, we cannot ascertain that all particles must either all have or all not have a cause, nor that all observations are themselves accurate. P1 is itself an example of such an inductive claim, as it relies on a (wrong) claim that we have not observed causeless particles or events. At best this means that we can only conclude, due to the absolute existence of uncertainty in our first premise, that it CANNOT be the case for either absolute resolution, that it can only be said that one or the other is PROBABLE, and even so, hence KCA is weakened, even in the best of cases; it happens to be the case from above evidence against P1 that the PROBABLE version of the KCA actually argues AGAINST universal cause. It has not been established that the universe has an absolute beginning to its existence The ‘big bang’ is not itself THE beginning of the universe, as proposed by most physics; it is merely the beginning of “real time”. In many (most?) cosmologies proposed by modern physics, the “big bang” is not the beginning of the universe, just the beginning of our ability to figure out what was going on. Because most physics implies that we can’t find out what was going on “before” the big bang, however, it is usually not discussed much, and is usually entirely discounted from the equations. [5] Any finite or deterministic Universe is an identity. Identities have neither beginning nor end; any thing can be represented by a sufficient number of other things to reproduce the pattern that is the identity. The universe, if deterministic, would constitute such an identity. Indeed, even a “big bang” with non-determinate physics would satisfy the qualities of an identity if measured over a finite time frame, including the from big bang to big rip/big crunch/big chill. It is a tautological truth that such a universe can be caused by anything that can cause it, because its identity is independent of cause. This means that the case in which there is a universe in which universes of the type and character of our own can cause themselves, or in which universes such as ours happen without cause must be accepted as possible antecedents to the universe. An instance of this universe in this way has every possible cause including no cause. From this perspective even universes which might appear to us as created have the above trait, absent some externally observed origin. Without the ability to directly observe origin of the universe, even IF it were to appear created, every possible alternative to “creation” is just as equally valid as an interpretation, including “without cause”. Special pleading must be invoked to prevent contradictions If it is assumed that the universe MUST have a beginning, without invoking special pleading, why does the cause not also have such a need for beginning? A burden of proof rests on the claimant that the super-nature in which the cause can exist in itself exists. A burden of proof rests on the claimant for the existence of the thing in that nature which supposedly did the causing. A burden of proof rests on the claimant that the universe itself cannot have such an uncaused existence in said super-nature. Further fallacies exist within the KCA argument that god(s) exist A non-sequitur argument is required to reach C2 Additional unavailable information is necessary to answer “WHICH cause”. A circular argument, AKA "Begging the Question" is required in C1 for the revised KCA As “Cause?” is not answered by the revised KCA, “WHICH cause?” is begging the question. Conclusions Revision is necessary because of points I and II above: Things that begin to exist MAY OR MAY NOT have causes, but many do not. The universe MAY OR MAY NOT have a beginning therefore The universe MAY OR MAY NOT have a cause. The revised KCA does not in fact answer the desired questions convincingly. KCA does not argue convincingly for cause KCA does not argue convincingly against cause Final conclusion:The KCA is a failed argument in the premises, and in its use of special pleading, and does not support any conclusion, and in particular it does not support the existence of god(s). Statements that do not argue for anything are at best unintentional misdirection, and in many cases direct attempts to knowingly mislead people, therefore, the KCA should not ever be used by anyone ever again. Bibliography: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.hawking.org.uk... Copyright (C) 2012 Andrew Kathan Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation A copy of the license is available at http://www.gnu.org...