Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

I wasn’t claiming at all that your argument is the exact same one as the composition objection. I was just pointing out that it was similar. My arguments still work regardless. Premise one isn’t solely based on a physical law. It is a metaphysical principle. Why would the Universe’s cause be an exception to a metaphysical principle? Con says people don’t debate axioms. However, why can’t they? People have debated hard facts, take the Flat Earth Society for example. If an argument came along that would change someone’s worldview, even if it consisted of all axioms, they would debate it. Mathematical truths aren’t disputed because it doesn’t step on any toes in this day and age. The causal principle is regarded as an axiom by many. One was Spinoza. 1663 geometrical exposition of Descartes' Principles of Philosophy The eleventh axiom of Part I of the book states: Nothing exists of which it cannot be asked, what is the cause (or reason) [causa (sive ratio)], why it exists. In a brief explanatory note to this axiom, Spinoza adds: Since existing is something positive, we cannot say that it has nothing as its cause (by Axiom 7). Therefore we must assign some positive cause, or reason, why [a thing] exists—either an external one, i.e., one outside the thing itself, or an internal one, one comprehended in the nature and definition of the existing thing itself (Geb. I/158/4–9). Axiom 7, to which Spinoza appeals in the explanation, is a variant of the “ex nihilo, nihil fit” principle, and stipulates that an existing thing and its perfections (or qualities) cannot have nothing or a non-existing thing as their cause. [1] Spinoza does say in another work that there is something with no cause, however it seems like he’s claiming that thing is God. I would agree just showing something is eternal doesn’t mean it was caused, however if it can’t be created under natural laws, and can’t be eternal, the conclusion follows. I didn’t just claim it can’t be eternal. Contingent doesn’t assume the causal principle. Nothing in the definition would suggest that. It just means dependant on something [2]. You can believe vacuum particles have no cause, yet you can still accept that they’re contingent on space-time, existence, and a vacuum. Can you give a source saying nothing in physics is something? I believe you misunderstood what I was getting at here. I was saying my main argument is philosophical and ex nihilo, nihil fit, is philosophical. Trying to refute these by using a physics definition is shoving the definition where it doesn’t belong. Where it would be relevant would be with the conservation of energy, but this wasn’t my only justification. The law says energy can’t be created or destroyed. If it was caused by this nothing, it would be created, violating the law; under the acclaimed physics definition of nothing, my argument still works. I never said nothing comes from nothing was based on physics; premise 1 has physical and philosophical justifications. Arguing that the Universe came from nothing or not does not mean you can ignore ex nihilo, nihil fit. This goes back to what Spinoza said. Robert Koons’ quote does have relevance. The Copenhagen interpretation is an indeterministic interpretation. Koons said In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not a nothing. It is the indeterministic cause of the temporary existence of the virtual particles." The second part I quoted from him was completely relevant; he talked all about indeterminism and causality. I need Con to expand on the initial state section. Since no state existed before fifteen billion years, how do we have states now? This argument was against premise 2, but if no state existed, the states began to exist. Con said “Assume that each of these are a state of the universe, where time equals something different in each state. T=4 is caused by T=3. T-3 is caused by T=2. T=2 is caused by T=1. T=1 is caused by T=.9, ad infinitum.” Now Con is saying you can’t go back to infinity, but it must stop at fifteen billion years. What’s the deal? Your lunch analogy does nothing to refute the regress argument. A state where L=0 is impossible, however there is a state where I began eating lunch. Just because there isn’t a state where you’ve been eating lunch for zero seconds, doesn’t mean we can have an infinite set of events. Thanks Now to Con for his last round. Sources ____________________________________________________ [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...