The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound

However in this debate I don't need to show that a premise is false, only that it is not logically sound. Somebody can make an unfalsifiable statement, that doesn't mean the statement is backed up by anything scientific or meaningful. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Classical argumentP1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence;P3: The universe has a cause of its existence. P4: Since no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personalWilliam Lane Craig's reformulated argumentP1: Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause. P2: The universe began to exist. P3: Therefore, the universe must have an external cause. P4: This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because he chose to create the universe. . http://en.wikipedia.org...Refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument's claimsRebutting Premise 1 (applies to both versions)The problem with the first premise is that it is a completely basesless assertion. We have no examples of things coming into existence that had a cause, only pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged that have a cause. Example 1: Nothing a human being is composed of "began to exist" when a person was conceived, a pre-existing sperm cell and egg cell change their state by combining. This process divides, evolves, and enlarges into what we label a human being eventually. [1] The human body is mostly made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen calcium, and phosphorus [2], all of which existed before the person in question. Example 2: The car you drive didn't "begin to exist", most of it was originally pre-existing steel, the steel was ore, the ore was orginally dirt and so on and so forth. Basically, a "car" is just a label we gave to something that is re-arranged pre-existing matter, nothing actually began to exist when the car was made. Re-Cap:"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" (or any version of this) is a baseless claim, because we have no examples of things beginning to exist which have causes. Reasons To Believe Premise 1 Is False We can actually indirectly observe virtual particle fluctuations actually popping in and out of existence (possibly beginning to exist), due to The Casimir effect, which is a direct consequence of virtual particles so we know they happen. They seem to be spontaneous, random, and uncaused (this does not mean that they for sure don'thave a cause, but the way they behave inticates they most likely do not). "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. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. Energy fluctuations out of nothing create short-lived particle-antiparticle pairs, which is why the vacuum is not emptiness but a sea of transient particles. An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the imagination. " - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville Quantum effects are essentially uncaused, as far as is known, with several examples of violations of Bell's inequalities [3]. Re-cap:Virtual particles seem to begin to exist uncausedConclusion regarding Premise 1:1) The premise is baselss because we have no examples of things that begin to exist that have causes, we observe pre-existing things changing form and being rearranged that have causes.2) One example of things that seem to "begin to exist" (for a short time) we can indirectly observe are virtual particle fluctuations, which seem to be random, spontaneous, and uncaused as all the evidence demonstrates.3) The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be interpreted as baseless, not sound, and false. Rebutting Premise 2 (applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments) Theists use Big Bang cosmology to defend this premise, and while the universe as we know it did have a beginning, there is no evidenece that the universe began to exist. The Singularity contained infinite density, temperature, and infinite space-time curvature. [4]The universe as it was(the singularity) expanded 13.7 billion years ago as the theory explains, there is nothing in The Big Bang model which suggests that the singularity just popped into existence (althoughit's possible for things measured at the sub-atomic level to come into existence according to Quantum Mechanics, this is not what The Big Bang model suggests)Conclusion regarding premise 2:The only thing backing this claim up is The Big Bang Theory, however the theory never suggeststhat the singularity began to exist, only that the unviverse as we know it had a beginning and it originated from the singularity. Rebutting Premise 3 (applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments)Since neither Premise 1 or 2 are logically sound, then there is no reason to assume that this premise holds any weight. It is a baseless assertion. Rebutting Premise 4 (classical argument)This premise commits the common logical fallacy called God of the Gaps [5], and therefore can be discredited. (Basically the God of the Gaps argument is "I can't understand this so God did it. ")Rebutting premise 4 (reformulated argument)Claiming that the cause must be personal because he chose to create the universe is yet, anotherbaseless assertion and completely irational. The premise assumes the cause must be a being with consciousnes. Lets assume (for the sake of argument) that the only logical conclusion is that the universe had a cause. This still wouldn't be a solid argument in favor of an intelligent creator, there are theories which invoke causes of the universe that are not involving conscious beings. M-Theory"M-Theory also provided another crucial aspect of the puzzle in that it explained how the Big Bang might have occurred, with two membranes colliding. The energy produced from such a collision is mathematical consistent with what we know from existing science. " [6]There are also other theories which invoke causes of the universe as well (none of which havesolid evidence to support them, but still more evidence than God explanations). Master re-cap:1) Premise 1 (of either version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument) is not logically sound becausewe have no examples of things being added to reality or "begnning to exist" which have causes. The only observation we have of causes, involve pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged. Premise 1 is also most likely false, because we can indirectly observe the effects of virtual particle fluctuations (particle and anti-particle pairs seeming to begin to exist). Evidence points to these fluctuations being uncaused.2) Premise 2 may be true, but it may not be. Either way, the only thing backing up this premise is The Big Bang. Since The Big Bang model never suggested that the singularity didn't come from a pre-existing state. It's not logicalto use The Big Bang as evidence of the universe beginning to exist ex nihilo.3) If 1 of the 2 previous premises is not sound, then the third cannot be.4) Premise 4 of the classical argument commits the logical fallacy known as God of the Gaps, Premise 4 of the reformulated argument creates the fallacy of assuming that if a cause of the universe is fact, then it is a conscious beingConclusion:Only one premise needs to be invlaid for me to meet my burden, however all of the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are baseless, and not logically sound. . Sources: [1] . http://biology.about.com...... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...... [3] . http://plato.stanford.edu...... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...... [5] . http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com...... [6] . http://www.wisegeek.com...... . http://www.youtube.com...