The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Thank you Con. Con begins with a type of "burden of proof" objection, claiming my position amounts to saying "I"m right till you prove me wrong." So before we continue, let"s discuss burden of proof. In most debates, the one making the positive claim (usually Pro) bears BOP. Yet, this does not mean Pro must state their argument by presenting evidence against any possible objection to their position. Indeed, doing so for this topic would require volumes upon volumes! Rather, it starts by presenting the argument, listening to the specific objections brought against it, and then defending against those objections. The "proof" comes largely in defending against the specific objections raised. Implicit to assigning a "burden of proof" to one side is assuming a "burden of attack" by the other. This does not mean Con has to prove me wrong, but they do have to raise objections against which I must defend. If my defense fails, then I have not met my BOP and I lose. So a more accurate characterization would be "my argument remains intact till your rebuttals show it does not." Something cannot create itself: Con"s objection here makes no sense. Attempting to argue that something can be self-created in a timeless dimension goes against the very definition of the word "create." Create implies that before, something did not exist, and later it did " the instant of the transition is the "creation." Such description is only possible within a time dimension, so claiming something can be self-caused outside of time is a meaningless statement. Without time, there would be no creation, not even self-creation. The universe would just "be." This is only possible in B Theory time, and I have given clear reasons why B Theory is unlikely to be true. I will touch on this more later. Nothing cannot create something: Con accuses me of circular reasoning. Con says, "This only makes sense if you already assume beforehand that all things that begin to exist must have a cause." Well, of course! It"s not a mere assumption, it"s a universal observation! That"s a premise of the whole argument, and it is Con"s job to demonstrate why that premise should be rejected, or at least doubted. I have invited Con to do so by challenging them to provide merely one example of something beginning to exist without cause, promising I would then immediately forfeit the debate. It is quite telling that Con has not responded to this challenge. I justify the validity of this premise through Inference to the Best Explanation: Everything we observe to exist is best explained by a cause. To defeat this premise, Con merely needs to present a single instance where this cause-effect relationship fails. Let"s see if they can do so in the final round. Rules for determining metaphysical possibilities: Con"s objection here has potential. Indeed, it would seem that if other metaphysical principles could be drawn from universal observations, some might contradict the Kalam argument. Con specifically highlights two: 1) Material things always come from material things. 2) Causes are always in temporal relation to their effects (paraphrase). The problem, for Con, is that these ARE NOT universally observed truths, and would therefore be unjustified metaphysical absolutes. 1) Material things always come from material things: Well, not always" for example, we have the power to control our own physical actions through our immaterial consciousness. Second, quantum vacuum fluctuations are examples that not everything that begins to exist has a material cause. In addition, the impossibility of an infinite regress of past events (Con actually admits "I grant that the universe has a finite past") means the universe"s cause cannot be material, because matter and energy are never quiescent. [1] Therefore, this metaphysical principle is not universally observed, and as such is unjustified. 2) Causes are always in temporal relation to their effects: There are reasons to believe this principle is not universally observed either. But even if it were, it does no damage to the Kalam argument. It is entirely possible that the First Cause existed timelessly without the universe, and then changed to a temporal relationship simultaneously at the moment of creation. There does not necessarily have to be a time lapse between the exercise of causal power and the production of an effect [2]. This would make the cause of the universe temporally simultaneous with the universe beginning to exist, which does not violate the principle in question. Once again, all Con has to do is present a single example where my premises are not supported by observation. Until they do, we must conclude that the premises are more likely true than not. I am not "picking and choosing" or trying to "stack the deck." All I"m saying is that if something is universally observed to be true, then it is reasonable to accept it as a likely metaphysical absolute. The universe did not begin to exist Through Con"s further explanation of this objection, I can recognize it as a variation of Adolf Grunbaum"s critique of the Kalam. It is a clever, but mostly semantic, objection. As it goes, if there is a singularity beyond which time did not exist, and if a "beginning" is only possible if there is a "time" prior to the object"s existence, then the universe could never "begin" because there is no "time" prior to its existence. But once again, the easiest response to this is the possibility that cause and effect can be simultaneous. In fact, this is more than a possibility, it is a very common reality. Consider a chandelier hanging from a chain: The instant it is attached to the ceiling, the tensil strength of the chain causes the chandelier to resist gravity"s pull. It"s not as if the tensil strength activates and then the chandelier stops falling, but rather, they happen simultaneously. This rebuttal holds no water. As far as Stephen Hawking"s imaginary time model, called the Hartle-Hawking Model, it"s just that " imaginary. Like the concept of imaginary numbers in math, imaginary time does not actually, physically exist. It is simply a tool used to make equations behave differently. It is purely a mathematical device used to make troublesome entities like complex numbers easier to model on paper. Astonishingly, Stephen Hawking himself admits this about his own theorem: "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities." [3] He then expands: "I"m a positivist. . . I don"t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don"t know what it is." [4] And again: "I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality." [5] So we see that the possibility quoted at length by Con is merely a mathematical model that does not, by the author"s own admission, even correspond to reality. There is little to reason for accepting it and it does no damage to the Kalam. B Theory Time Finally, Con accuses me of not justifying why A Theory time is more likely than B Theory (which is amusing, since Con"s "argument" for B Theory in the last round amounted to merely describing it and then calming "B Theory is more likely true than A Theory" without further explanation). Conversely, I DID justify why A Theory is more likely, justifications that Con notably did not respond to. The most basic justification I can give, to repeat, is that the way we experience (observe) time seems to confirm A Theory, while we have no experience of B Theory. The past is gone (we remember it), the present is here (we experience it), and the future is yet to come (we anticipate it). By the time you finish reading this sentence, you will perceive it as something you just did, and it is now in the past. This is exactly the experience that A Theory would predict. B Theory, conversely, would predict us having "memories" of events both past and future, since they are both equally real. This would mean time travel is also possible, which brings up the impossible paradox of being able to kill your past self. In addition, we would assign no meaning to phrases such as "thank goodness that"s over!" because there is no reason to be thankful for an event that simply occurred earlier than another if they are both equally and simultaneously real. But we do not experience any of these things. Therefore, that is reason enough to accept A Theory as more likely true. Thank you Con for a truly fun debate! [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [3] Hawking, Stephen, "A Brief History of Time," p. 138 [4] Hawking, Penrose, "Nature of Space and Time," p. 121 [5] Ibid., p. 3