The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

However, I will show why his arguments ultimately fail when put under critical scrutiny. Premise 1. Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause Pro does not really defend this premise, he just attacks an argument some Atheists make. He argues that there are underlying axioms in mathematics, which may be true but he does not really tie this in with the first premise. Why should anyone believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause is an axiom, or even true? It is not even a scientific principle, as many esteemed physics reject such a notion: "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. " - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville[1] "Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physics[2] Philosophers of physics reject that notion as well: "There is observational evidence, albeit indirect, that this uncaused emergence of energy or particles (notably virtual particles) frequently occurs. " - Quentin Smith. Philosopher of physics[3] Pro simply hasn't given us a reason to assume that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is actually true. Thus, he hasn't established the burden of proof he holds in this debate. Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist Pro cites The Big Bang, but he never really argues how The Big Bang actually supports the second premise of the argument. Even if the universe has a finite past, that is not enough to establish the universe began to exist. This is because "began to exist" is synonymous with "came into being". Here is Dr. William Lane Craig's definition: e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact[4] However, this is an insufficient definition, because it leaves out an important requirement. It seems intuitively reasonable to assume that if something came into being, it must have been out of being. Basically, it did not exist, then it existed. (i) shows a universe with a finite past that comes into being, and (ii) shows a universe with a finite past that does not come into being: As you can see, a coming into being of the universe is only possible if prior to the first moment a thing exists, that thing does not exist. Thus, a proper definition would be: e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) prior to t, e is out of being (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed factWe can replace Dr. William Lane Craig's (iii) with my (iii), because his (iii) is only there so God doesn't have to come into being. Well, my (iii) already takes care of that, and includes the additional requirement. For these reasons, my (iii) should be preferred over Dr. Craig's. Unless Pro can show that there was a "prior" to The Big Bang, in which there was no universe; premise 2 has not been established even if we do assume The Big Bang, and the notion that the universe has a finite past. Atheistic Explanations For The Coming Into Being Of The UniverseLets assume that the universe came into being and needs an explanation (I don't concede this, but this will be the context of this section). One way it could have happened was through a spontaneous quantum tunnelling process. Space, time, and energy could have emerged from a timeless and spaceless background governed by the laws of nature [5]. This idea has been put forward by well respected physicist Alexander Vilenkin, who describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model, and no initial cause is needed:"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate. .. If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required. " - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[6] By "cause", Vilenkin simply means a sufficient condition. The timeless and spaceless background would of course serve as an unstable necessary condition. If one simply views necessary conditions as a cause, then the universe would still be caused under this scenario. ConclusionCon did not support premise 1 or premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument sufficiently. Additionally, it's not clear what he means by "cause", "universe", or "begins to exist" for that matter. Either way, I showed than an Atheistic explanation for the universe is possible due to quantum mechanics. Thus, the idea that God must be the explanation for the universe coming into being (assuming the universe did come into being) is false. The resolution has not been established by Pro. Sources [1] . http://atheism.about.com... [2] . http://www.infidels.org... [3] . http://www.debate.org... [4] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[5] . http://mukto-mona.net...[6] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)