The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Also no apology necessary as I have been busy the past two days and you posting later allows me to post a less rushed and hopefully better response. God does not have to be the cause of our universeDescription of the cause of the universe & Occam's RazorNow Pro tells us that KCA provides sufficient reason to believe the cause is God because. .. "it does provide evidence for an extremely powerful being that is a personal one, and intelligent enough to create a functioning universe. " Pro then says well lets just call that God cause its close enough. This is not a correct application of Occams Razor. Even if it can be proved that the cause of the universe is very powerful, to then say the cause is maximally powerfully is a violation of occams razor. Even if it can be proved that the cause has enough intelligence to create a universe, to then say the cause must be all knowing is a violation of occams razor. In other words stick to what is necessary and don't add what is unnecessary. Pro informs us that the KCA doesn't provide sufficient reason to believe the cause is maximally powerful or all knowing. This is admirably honest from Pro but trouble is God is described by Pro them-self as. .. "God: The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe. " If the cause of the universe is NOT maximally powerful then its it NOT God. If the cause of the universe is NOT maximally intelligent then its not God. Must the cause be maximally powerful and maximally intelligent ? Pro concedes insufficient justification for describing the cause as such. Must the cause be timeless and space less ? Pro makes some comments about how a timeless God can interact with their creation. That's nice but that doesn't address my objection. Pro has still not given any reason why the cause of our universe can't exist in a time and space different from our own. Must the cause be personal ? In order to justify a timeless state causing a temporal state Pro refers to there water and wood example. How exactly does this prove that a timeless cause must be personal ? It seems to me we have more assertion from Pro than justification. Remember we are talking about a meta physical claim here, Pro is claiming its meta physically impossible outside of our universe for non personal timeless thing to cause something temporal. I think we are entitled as to ask how Pro knows this. Until Pro can prove this, then its possible that the cause of the universe is non personal and thus it unnecessary to attribute personhood to the cause. A mind without a brain ? Previously I pointed out how we observe that minds are dependent on brains. Pro once again repeats the claim that well its still possible to have a mind without a brain. I already granted that, its also possible that we are all living in the matrix, point been if you want to establish the existence of something especially the extraordinary you are going to need alot more that just the mere "possibility" of its existence. Don't make me bring up the alien mothership again. Pro had no reply to the problem of how religious claims/ claims said to have come from the mind of God are contradictory. Pro had no reply to the problem of the unfalisifiablity of these religious/God mind claims and as such the adherents of these claims can never know nor be proved to be wrong. Pro had no reply to the problem of how we don't see testable falsifiable claims been made by a supreme mind that can be confirmed. Pro had no reply to how minds can't produce physical objects from nothing. (I am still trying with that cheese cake but no luck, how are you guys going with that ? )There is no reason to believe such a mind exists and good reason to believe it doesn't exist. Something from nothingPro says. .. For one the idea that something can come from nothing without a causer that can bridge this gap makes no sense. How could this happen? Remember we are speaking about things that can or can't happen OUTSIDE of the universe, This isn't a proof by Pro its an argument from incredulity/inconceivability as wikipedia says. .. "Arguments from incredulity take the form:P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false. It is obvious that P (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true. These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false. " [1]Things in the past that have been rejected on the basis that its makes no sense, which are absurd, which are inconceivable include. .. The earth is not at the centre of the universe (Where else would God put it ? )The earth is NOT flat (If the earth was a sphere people at the bottom would just drop off, don't be stupid)The earth is not the product of a divine intelligence (Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that)Non locality in physics - "In another weirdness, two particles can be bound together such that observing one causes changes in the other, even when they're physically far apart. This quantum embrace, called entanglement (or more generally, non locality), made Einstein nervous. He famously called the phenomenon "spooky action at a distance. " [2]Pro says. .. "Now Con says sure nothing like that happens in our universe, but what about outside of it? Well I think we have great reasons to say why it doesn't happen. Or if it does happen we have philosophical reasoning to believe that it was caused by a being that can bridge the gap between nothing and existence. "And what are those great reasons ? It can't be based on observations on parts of the universe in order to establish what is true about the universe as a whole as that would be to commit the composition fallacy. It can't be because you can't imagine how it can't be any other way cause that is just to appeal to incredulity. Pro says. .. "I'm not saying to abandon the idea of it being a possibility, but until there can be evidence of such an event we are subject to the logic behind the universe having a cause. "This is an interesting concession from Pro, If I am reading this right, Pro is acknowledging that outside of the universe and the universe as a whole (but NOT inside of the universe) that something can come from nothing, Pro replies never the less that logic dictates that we should still regard the universe as a WHOLE as having a cause. But that's the point I have been making, the logic does NOT follow because of committing the composition fallacy and appeals to incredulity. With the universe as a whole not requiring a cause, then its unnecessary to claim the universe has any cause yet alone that cause be God. What does it mean to say that something "began" to exist ?1) Something begins to exist if there was a point in the past where it did not existDespite all the talk about infinite past moments and a comparison of the universe vs its non existence, it is still the case that there has never been a "time" where the universe did not exist. Pro accepts that a rock exists but there was a previous time when it did not exist thus it "began to exist" but Pro does not follow the same kind of reasoning concerning the universe. There was no previous time in which the universe did not exist ergo it did not "begin" to exist. If Pro rejects this understanding of what it means for something to "begin" to exist, then maybe Pro can tell us what they think it means for something to "begin" to exist. I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.wired.com...