The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I would like to start at the end of Pros argument where they go from our universe has a cause and this cause must be God. God does not have to be the cause of our universeMust our universe be created by a first cause ? Even if there is a first cause, why is it not possible that the first cause created something, which then created something, which then created our universe ? . It doesn't follow that even if a first cause exists then that it must be the direct cause of our universe without any steps in between. Must the cause be all powerful ? If the universe has a cause, then its only necessary that the cause be powerful enough to cause the universe, it doesn't follow necessarily that the cause must be all powerful. Must the cause be intelligent ? If the universe has a cause, or there is a first cause, why is it necessary that the cause possess any intelligence, yet alone some kind of maximal all knowing intelligence ? Pro doesn't seem to give any reason for the intelligence of the cause of the universe. Must the cause be timeless & spaceless ? If Pro was to make the point that a cause of our universe must be outside of our time and space in this universe then I might be inclined to agree. But that doesn't mean that a cause of our universe is beyond time and space absolutely. Why can't the cause of our universe be within space and time that is separate from our own ? Must the cause be personal ? We accept plenty of non personal causes in our everyday lives, it seems Pro merely asserts that the cause of the universe must be personal. Until shown otherwise the cause of our universe could be non-personal. Must the cause be morally perfect and/or omi benevolent ? Christopher Hitchens makes the point here in a debate with William Craig at Biola University. .. "if there was an entity that was responsible for the beginning of the cosmos, and that also happened to be busily engineering the very laborious product—production of life on our little planet, it still wouldn't prove that this entity cared about us, answered prayers, cared what church we went to, or whether we went to one at all, cared who we had sex with or in what position or by what means, cared what we ate or on what day, cared whether we lived or died. There's no reason at all why this entity isn't completely indifferent to us. That you cannot get from deism to theism except by a series of extraordinarily generous, to yourself, assumptions. " [1] A mind without a brain ? Pro claims that the cause of the universe is an "unembodied mind". But we have no reason to accept this and good reason to reject this. Every mind we encounter has a brain connected to it. Also the dependency of the mind to the brain is shown in brain injuries, where the brain is changed the mind is changed as well. Now my above objections apply if the universe has a "cause", but not even that can be taken as a given, which leads me two the first two premises of pros argument. Premise 1 (P1): Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Everything has a cause or everything that begins to exist has a cause ? Pro says. .. "I had a cause, this planet had a cause, this galaxy had a cause, and this home of all existence, the Universe, had a cause. To dismiss something purely on the idea of size, or the idea that everything does have a cause but not the Universe itself, is what Dr. Craig calls the taxicab fallacy. " Well I guess we can't say God doesn't have a cause either, after all that would be to commit the taxi cab fallacy, if everything has a cause you can't then exempt God. But I jest, Pro made a mistake, what Pro really meant is that everything that begins to exist has a cause NOT that everything has a cause. Only God exists without a cause ? But as far as Pros argument goes notice that although everything that begins to exist has a cause, ONLY God is claimed to not begin to exist and thus God exists without a cause. As such P1 within the context of the argument can be interpreted as saying. .. P1) Everything that exists has a cause. .. .. .. EXCEPT God. So lets look at the argument. .. . P1) Everything that exists has a cause. .. .. EXCEPT God. P2) The universe is something other than God C) Therefore the universe has a cause P3) The cause of the universe is something that does not its self have a cause P4) Only God exists as something without a cause C) Therefore the cause of the universe is God Why is "God" the only thing that is claimed to not begin to exist thus not have a cause ? Why isn't is possible that something else even unknown to us exists that doesn't begin to exist thus doesn't have a cause ? Fallacy of composition and the universe Pro mentions the fallacy of composition as wikipedia explains. .. "The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). " [2] Pro says. .. "To claim that this commits the fallacy of composition would indicate that there are things in this Universe that aren't caused. " That's not true, to commit this fallacy or any fallacy just means the conclusion does not NECESSARILY follow from the previous premises. To emphasize this point consider this article from Iron Chariots which deals with this fallacy within the context of the Kalam argument. .. "Everything we are familiar with is an object within a set (the universe). It is a fallacy of composition to extrapolate the properties of things we are familiar with (which are objects within a set) to properties of the set as a whole (the universe). Examples: "Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly. " or "Each human being has a mother, therefore the human race has a mother. " The conclusion doesn't follow because the only way to determine whether the airplane has the property of being able to fly or not would be to get outside the plane (set) and then make observations. Unfortunately, we are stuck inside the universe, therefore any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole. " [3] Something from nothing Pro makes another claim about how. .. "Nothing has ever caused something into existence,". Now sure within this universe this can be argued as confirmed, but how does Pro know that this rule applies outside and beyond the universe ? After all Pro is also arguing that there is a mind without a brain beyond our universe. If Pro can have a mind without a brain outside of this universe why can't I have something coming from nothing outside of this universe ? Premise 2 (P2): The Universe began to exist. What does it mean to say that something "began" to exist ? Pro refers to examples such as rocks and babies. But notice in these examples there was a point of time in the past where they did not exist. So for something to "begin" to exist there has to be a time in the past where it did not exist. But there is no point in the time where time and/or the universe did not exist. To say that time existed "before" time existed is a contradiction. The argument is as follows. .. 1) Something begins to exist if there was a point in the past where it did not exist 2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not exist C) Therefore the universe did not "begin" to exist. If the universe did not "begin" to exist then it does not follow even according to this argument that is has a cause. Conclusion: Therefore the Universe has a causeI might want to bring up some things here but I am running out of characters as such I look forward to Pros reply. Sources [1] . http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://wiki.ironchariots.org...