The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I will open with a general refutation of the elements of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), but due to the 10,000 character limitation, will need to address many of my opponent’s specific points in future rounds. Whatever begins to exist To accept this proposition, one would need to examine examples of things which begin to exist. What do we know of things that begin to exist within our universe? Any physical object involving matter is actually just a restructuring of already existing matter that has been existent since the universe began. Break any material object down, and it consists of protons, neutrons and electrons (which are comprised of even smaller subatomic particles) in various configurations. We do not have access to the moment (t=0) when these particles actually began to exist, if indeed they did “begin” ex nihilo (rather than import from some larger cosmos for example – a possibility I’ll address in greater detail later). The only example of something which we can empirically observe to ‘begin to exist’ is the creation (and almost immediate annihilation) of virtual particles in a vacuum as detected by the Casimir Effect. [1] This quantum foam is quite unplanned and provides the only thing we can witness that truly ‘begins to exist’ within our universe. Random, virtual particles popping in and out of existence due to quantum flux do not advance the argument for a necessary supernatural intelligent agent, but rather point to a natural chaos affected by quantum mechanics. Has a cause of its existence The fact is, all physical things that we know to exist are witnessed inside our universe, their present formation derived from the laws of physics governing time and space. We do not have an outside view of how our universe was made, and thus cannot with complete confidence currently point to any external “cause”. Because time and space are inextricably linked, even asking the question of what caused the universe may make no sense; like asking what time it was before time began. So while it is possible that there was an initial cause of our universe that we might make sense of, it’s also possible that there wasn’t a cause in any meaningful way we can now comprehend given the limits of our internal perspective. Similarly, we currently don’t know for sure if there is anything to even discuss outside our known universe or if the observable “cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be. ” [2] Having said that, I’m willing to accept that most of the discussion will revolve around external causes which may have been responsible for creating our universe. The universe began to exist That our universe started with a ‘big bang’ is not really in dispute, but it should be noted that the big bang itself is currently an incomplete scientific theory as it does not currently address its own origin. However, when we focus upon the speculation of what ‘caused’ the big bang that started our universe, we have many hypotheses to choose from. Explicit in the KCA proposition is that a supernatural agent (God) was necessary for our universe to begin. But if our universe is a reformation of material from a larger expanse – perhaps the result of a black hole [3] (perhaps even a four dimensional black hole [4]) within a larger universe, then its beginning was simply a natural reconfiguration of existing material; as it would be if our universe is “just one in a vast collection of universes known as the multiverse. ” [5] We could even be living inside a Holographic universe where the 3-d space we perceive is just an illusion. [6] Whatever our universe is, whatever may have “caused” our universe, most cosmologists are not convinced the solution to the inception of our universe is a supernatural being. Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. The Kalam Cosmological Argument in denying the possibility of actual infinites fails on two counts – scientifically and logically. Scientifically we understand that if the universe continues to accelerate due to “dark energy” exceeding critical density, it will expand forever. In other words, there is no known logical or physical barrier to preventing actual infinite space and time. [7] The second problem is defining an uncaused eternal being (God) as himself being infinite. When denying infinity, one shouldn’t imagine a real being that has “always” existed. This is a logical contradiction. Either God has a finite beginning, in which event one might still rationally argue actual infinities could be impossible - or God has always existed and always will, thus refuting the notion that actual infinities cannot exist. Furthermore, one of the key principles of Christianity is the promise of life eternal [8] in an everlasting place known as heaven (or, for infidels like me, never ending torment in a place called Hell). Whether viewed scientifically or through self-contradictory beliefs , defending the impossibility of actual infinities fails. If actual infinities can exist, then this leg of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God Finally, even if we concede for the sake of argument that the universe does indeed have a comprehensible “cause” of its existence, it by no means leaves “God” as the only conclusion. If God can be eternal, so can an infinite multiverse that has the innate natural properties necessary to birth baby universes… like ours. Admittedly, all propositions are currently hypothetical – however, scientists like Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek are hard at work designing empirical tests that may one day prove or falsify the multiverse hypothesis. [9] Indeed, we may already have the first actual evidence of the axions that Wilczek’s model predicts which begins to affirm the conclusion that the multiverse is more than just idle speculation. [10] Contrary to these scientific efforts to objectively prove various hypotheses, the theist proposes no empirical testing that can prove or falsify God. But even if we had no other potential explanations for how our universe came to be, defaulting to God as the only conclusion is simply a failure of being able to imagine other causes. It’s an argument from ignorance (God of the gaps) to claim that, because we don’t know with certainty exactly how our universe came to be, God did it. Therefore, God Exists Implicit in the opening premise is the argument that whatever has always existed does NOT require a cause for its existence (since only things which “begin” to exist require a cause). This is clearly an unproven assertion. We have no empirical evidence of something that has always existed (we cannot observe it, we cannot test it. ) In fact, even asserting that something has always existed begs the question. We can speculate as to the nature of something which may have always existed, but this does not mean the claim that there is something which has eternally existed is true. The burden of proof required to make this claim has not been met. Thought of another way, if we reform the syllogism, we can see that inserting God is only special pleading and other concepts that meet the criteria could be inserted… P1: X exists without initial cause. P2: All other things which exist depend first upon X pre-existing. P3: Other things exist. C: Therefore, X is an uncaused multiverse that has always existed. The theist would be right to demand evidence before accepting this logical “proof”. Syllogisms cannot stand alone – they are insufficient to prove the conclusion, just like the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Simply defining a possibility (an eternal God, an eternal multiverse, unicorns, etc. ) in a construct which does not logically contradict itself does not make that possibility real. Furthermore, each premise may be false or incomplete: for example, Y and Z could also exist without initial cause. In fact, when we open the door to things existing without initial cause outside of space and time as we understand them, if one thing could exist without initial cause, then many things (each perhaps with many different attributes) could exist without initial cause. The KCA artificially limits its syllogism to presume only one thing (God) could exist with no initial cause and has no logical justification for this limitation. Finally, no matter how sound, one cannot create an analytical proposition that proves the reality of that proposition without observation. [11] For example, the analytical statement, “there is no alien life on other planets within our universe” may be a perfectly valid and true statement, but without empirical evidence verifying its validity, it cannot be proven to be true. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, in any form, is constructed on faulty and unverifiable analytical premises, and thus the conclusion that God (or anything else) exists outside our universe fails from this argument. Sources: [1] . http://math.ucr.edu... [2] Carl Sagan, Cosmos [3] . http://www.insidescience.org... [4] . http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca... [5] . http://www.dailygalaxy.com... [6] . http://www.symmetrymagazine.org... [7] . http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [8] John 3:16 [9] “Ongoing experiments aimed at detecting the axion background could prove, in one stroke: […] A multiverse. ” . http://youtu.be... [10] . http://www.sciencedaily.com... [11] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_fork