The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not sound

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause. What Does It Mean To "Begin To Exist"? Well the first premise appeals to intuition. Everything we see at that begins has a cause, but first off what does it really mean to "begin to exist"? You could say that a "chair" began to exist and had a cause, but in reality all a "chair" is, is a re-arranged version and changed state of previous materials and nothing new was actually added to reality that wasn't there before in some form. So it's clear there is some confusion on what it exactly means to begin to exist, and there may be some glossing over involving the words "begins to exist" to mean both creatio ex-materia and creatio ex nihilo. In the video I provided at the top right, William Lane Craig describes what it means to him for something to begin to exist: “x begins to exist at t, if and only if, x exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which x exists” – William Lane Craig Unfortunately for him, according to this God began to exist: “God begins to exist at t, if and only if, God exists at t, and there is no time prior to t at which God exists” Any theist will gladly admit that God existed at the first moment of The Big Bang, so I doubt they will have a problem with God existing at t. However there was no time prior to this moment, thus there was no time prior to t in which God existed (if there was time prior to t in which God existed, then this would mean there was time prior to t, which is not the case when it comes to The Big Bang). So Craig’s own explanation for what it means to begin to exist, applies to God. Therefore, according to William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument and his explanation of “begins to exist”, God has a cause. Also, philosophers such as Atheist Adolf Grunbaum and Theist Richard Swinburne have argued that something only begins to exist if there was a time earlier at which it didn't exist [1]. This wouldn't apply to the universe however, because the Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) [2] is the earliest period, so there could not have been a time earlier in which the universe didn't exist. B-TheoryThe Kalam Cosmological Argument seems to rest on the assumption that the A-Theory of time is true. This theory states that the past existed, now exists, and the future will exist. B-theory however, states that the past, present and future all exist (in a 4d or n+1d block), and the present is just the present image seen on progression through this block, and no more real than those before or after. Physical theories such as special relativity, and latterly Quantum mechanics provide the B-theory with compelling support, and this is the most accepted theory of time in physics and the philosophy of physics. However under this theory, something doesn't "begin to exist at t", so the Kalam Cosmological Argument seems to be under a shaky foundation in light of this. Why is B-Theory superior to A-Theory? Well for example, what is happening on Mars if I clap my hands? That answer depends on your frame of reference to me, and this can be explained by special relativity and fits well with B-Theory. A-Theorists on the other hand would have to say there is one correct answer, which means that theory seems to have less explanatory power. Quantum FluctuationsSpontaneous productions of particle and anti-particle pairs occur in what otherwise be empty space, and this seems to violate the conservation of energy (however, this is allowed by the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). Many physicists believe these quantum fluctuations are uncaused, and believe they have explanatory power when explaining the possible origins of our universe. "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. " - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [3] "Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist [4] One could say that we "just don't know the cause" but these fluctuations do not behave like something which had a cause they take place in a very counter-intuitive domain. Also, the very possibility that these fluctuations are uncaused disproves that whatever begins to exit must necessarily have a cause. And If anything begins to exist, I think these spontaneous particle/anti-particle creations count as such. Alexander Vilenkin's Model Of Cosmic OriginsWell, we know that a vacuum fluctuation is an uncaused emergence of energy out of empty space that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi). However, Alexander's model of comic origins describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It's 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. Since the universe emerged from "nothing" (but not absolutely nothing, it is a geometry described by mathematics) under this model without a cause, and it is consistent with observation then the Kalam Cosmological Argument simply does not stand because it's conclusion is based on the necessity of a cause of the universe. Stephen Hawking's No Boundary ProposalStephen Hawking calculated that time can behave like another direction of space, and even though there is a finite past there may not be an actual boundary. This would mean that the universe didn't have an actual beginning (this is consistent with Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe paper), and thus had no causeThe main criticism to this is Hawking's use of "imaginary numbers", however there is no reason to think they are not useful in explaining reality. "[Imaginary numbers] turn out to be invaluable in many applications of mathematics to engineering, physics, and almost every other science. Moreover, these numbers obey all the rules which you already know for ‘real’ numbers” (John Conway and Richard Guy: The Book of Numbers, pg. 212). Something From NothingWell one could talk about a mathematical geometry governed by the laws of physics with no space-time or energy being nothing, because laws are no-"thing". However absolute nothingness (what a rock dreams about) seems logically incoherent. If absolutely nothingness exists, then the fact that absolutely nothing exists, exists. If theists accept that abstract things like 'facts' are real, then absolute nothingness is impossible. If there is allowed a fact to exist, then why not the fact that there are laws of physics? ConclusionPremise 1 seems to be most likely false if we accept the common notion of what it means to begin to exist like I'm sure advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument do. These spontaneous, uncaused, and random quantum fluctuations that occur in empty space simply seem to falsify this premise. Also, if we assume B-Theory (which an overwhelming amount of physicists and philosophers of physics do) then nothing "begins to exist at t". Also, there are models of cosmic origins which work without a cause, and models which do not necessitate a beginning of the universe. As far as the concept of ex nihilo nihil fit is concerned, the very idea of absolute nothingness is incoherent so it may be irrelevant to the discussion. Sources[1] . http://commonsenseatheism.com...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://atheism.about.com...[4] . http://www.infidels.org...http://www.youtube.com...