The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I anticipate a tough debate and I hope that I learn something from you. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” This premise is not true. “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” is demolished in our understanding of quantum mechanics and decay of Carbon-14 atoms. Scientist found that particles of energy may come into existence, completely uncaused, in empty space [1]. Furthermore, another exception is the decay of C-14 atoms. C-14 has a half life of 5730 years, half of the C-14 present is identical, yet they decay at different times. If all atoms are exactly the same, should not they decay at precisely the same time? Because they do not, we have came to believe that the decay is spontaneous and hence uncaused [2]. Hence, we see that it is possible that vacuum fluctuations are possibly what caused the Big Bang. It is interesting to note that this possibility is perfectly possible [3]. Contradiction responds by arguing that although some quantum mechanics appear uncaused, they still have certain necessary preconditions before they can occur. My objection is that these quantum events are still uncaused, even if, for example, quantum fluctuations can only occur in a quantum vacuum. We must recognize that many quantum events are not necessitated by some earlier state. Could it be that the universe was a completely spontaneous thing whose existence is completely independent of what existed before? If not, why not. “The universe began to exist” This premise is somewhat problematic. The fact that the universe had a beginning does not mean that physical existence as a whole had a beginning. For example, some cosmologist believe that at our universe began in the black hole of another universe. Hence, if this is true, then it may be that there were universes giving rise to even more universe through black holes. An Actual Infinity? “Imagine a library with an infinite number of books. Suppose that half of the books are blue and half of them are green, so that for every blue book there is a green book, and vice versa. It follows that the library contains as many green books as the total books in its collection (an infinity), and as many blue books as green and blue books combined (also an infinity). But this is absurd. Therefore, actual infinities cannot exist. ” I believe that it fails because finite numbers cannot be expected to behave as infinite numbers. By this logic, one must reject the belief in God as he is supposedly an actual infinite. Moreover, we do know that an actual infinity does exist! To demolish this point, allow me to bring up both definitions of a singularity: 1: "A gravitational singularity or spacetime singularity is a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. "[4] 2: "A point at which a function takes an infinite value, esp. in space-time when matter is infinitely dense, as at the center of a black hole"[5]Thus, I have shown that this point is false. Moreover, my question is that how is God able to be infinite without special pleading? If it is because of the fact that he is transcendent, I ask, how can a being outside time do any thinking (or anything) at all? So, what we have seen is that if the Big Bang is true (which Contradiction agrees with), then it is possible that the universe could have began in a singularity, which is an actual infinity. Begging the Question Dan Barker asks a few questions that I would like to ask my opponent which sheds light onto the failure of the Kalam Cosmological Argument [6]. In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least: Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist? If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question? If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated? Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world? If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question? If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God? Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself? If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings? Thank you, Contradiction, and I await your responses. References [1] . http://universe-review.ca... [2] Stenger, Victor. God: The Failed Hypothesis, pp132-125 [3] Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures (Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University Press, 1996), p. 20. [4] Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n. d. ). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from <. http://en.wikipedia.org...> [5] . http://tinyurl.com... [6]. Barker, Dan. Cosmological Kalamity. . http://www.infidels.org...