The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A CauseMy opponent asserts that this causal law is one that must hold for two reasons:(i) If this causal law did not hold, the universe would be random and chaotic(ii) This causal law is fundamental to science The problem with (i) is that it begs the question against the universe being random and chaotic pertaining to certain areas. It is commonly accepted that randomness holds at the sub-atomic scale[1]. The problem with (ii) is similar. According to the most widely accepted interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (indeterministic interpretations), a quantum fluctuation stands in relation to a necessary condition, but a specific fluctuation will have no sufficient cause for why it occurs and happens spontaneously[2]. For ease involving conceptual analysis of quantum fluctuations, this illustration may help: Deterministic interpretations which entail causes of these fluctuations are ad hoc, in that they are contrived in order to "get around the problem" of quantum randomness, and they also seem to force physicists to abandon locality unnecessarily[3]. While a quantum fluctuation stands in relation to the quantum vacuum, there is a good chance that there truly is no sufficient cause for each quantum fluctuation that occurs. This means that a proper causal process is not present. As Wes Morriston argues, if something begins to exist that stands in relation to a necessary condition, but has no sufficient cause, then this is an event without a cause[4]. The term "necessary cause" only has merit when dealing with a sufficient cause. Without a sufficient cause with regards to quantum mechanics, we are simply left with an unstable necessary condition with no cause. One can argue semantics and claim that a necessary condition is still a cause, even if there is a lacking sufficient cause. However, this is not what most people mean when they think of causation. Delving into this line of rebuttal would be mere tautology, and would be fruitless.Here are supporting quotes from experts in the field with regards to causeless beginnings:"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville[5]"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist[6]It seems as if my opponent's appeal to ridicule pertaining to how uncaused beginnings are nowhere to be found in science is likely to be false. This is due the problems I mentioned earlier with deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the uselessness of claiming a necessary condition without a sufficient condition is a cause. Pro also makes the claim that things that begin to exist are usually due to a combination of factors, or a sentient being. However, a sentient being's choices do involve a combination of factors. My opponent here is drawing a false distinction in context. Sentient choices are caused by prior neural activity in the brain[7][8]. Fruitytree has not properly defended the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.Premise 2: The Universe Began To ExistThe universe could have only began to exist if the A-Theory of time is true, as the champion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (William Lane Craig) himself admits:"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang... If time is tenseless [which B-Theory entails], then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig[9]When it comes to the B-Theory of time, there is no "begins to exist". The past, present and future all exist (in a 4d or n+1d block), with the present image seen on progression through this block, and being no more real than those before or after. The Big Bang would just exist as a fixated point on a tenseless timeline. Many philosophers and scientists adhere to notion that this view is proven:"As it turns out, it is actually impossible to find any objective and universally acceptable definition of “all of space, taken at this instant.” This follows … from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The idea of the block universe is, thus, more than an attractive metaphysical theory. It is a well-established scientific fact." - Rudy Rucker[10]"Special relativity [by itself] appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view." -Vesslin PetkovThe reason for the support for B-Theory is due to Special Relativity. Einstein's theory has been tested time and time again, and has passed flying colors[11]. The most rational interpretation of this theory is the Minkowski space-time view[12]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[13]). This interpretation spells death for A-Theory, because A-Theory entails a universal "now" moment. However, the Minkowski space-time view entails that there is no universal "now" moment, and is the most scientifically sound interpretation. Therefore, we have a solid scientific basis for the claim that A-Theory is false. Even defenders of A-Theory agree that it is the least accepted view out of the two theories:"The A-theory is almost certainly a minority view among contemporary philosophers with an opinion about the metaphysics of time.” - Dean Zimmerman[14]Here is an illustration showing the difference between to the two theories (A-Theory on the right, B-Theory on the left): However, if A-Theory is false, then the universe did not begin to exist. Therefore, premise 2 here is in deep trouble indeed.Here are some supporting quotes from physicists in support of B-Theory:"The past, present, and future are all equally real; they all exist." - Brian Greene[15]"If you believe the laws of physics, there is just as much reality to the future and the past, as there is to the present moment." - Sean Carrol[15]"The past is not gone, and the future isn't non-existent. The past, present, and future are all existing in exactly the same way." - Max Tegmark[15]Even if A-Theory Is True...Even if A-Theory is true (which I gave good reasons to believe that it is not), "a starting point coming into being from no starting point" does not follow from "a starting point", and is not synonymous with "a starting point". Arguing in favor of The Big Bang, or a finite past, is futile without external support for this very reason.Premise 3: The Universe Has A CauseI gave good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe the first two premises are false. Also, the argument for why the cause must be sentient was already taken care of in my refutation of the first premise. ConclusionMy opponent did not meet her burden of proof; I exceeded mine. Thus, as it stands, the resolution has been negated. Sources [1] http://www.technologyreview.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu... [4] http://commonsenseatheism.com... [5] http://atheism.about.com... [6] http://www.infidels.org...[7] http://www.consciousentities.com... [8] http://www.nature.com...[9] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184 [10] The Fourth Dimension, p. 149[11] http://en.wikipedia.org... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org... [13] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [14] http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu...[15] Video Sourcehttp://www.youtube.com...