The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Other than a few passing remarks, he’s confined those criticisms to premise (1), thereby putting all his eggs into one basket. If the basket unravels, then so does his case against the KCA. In my estimation, this indeed is the case. Let’s turn now to premise (1). (1) Whatever Begins to Exist has a Cause You will recall that I offered three lines of evidence for premise (1):i. The metaphysical principles that something cannot come from nothing. ii. If something could come into being without a cause, it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything do not come into being uncaused. iii. Premise (1) is constantly verified and never falsified. With regard to (i), all my opponent really has to say is that it doesn’t establish premise (1) so much as it’s a counter-objection to the claim that they universe came into being ex nihilo. But I don’t think that’s the case. For the principle “out of nothing, nothing comes” precludes things arising without a cause ex materia, ex deo, and sans ex just as much as it precludes things arising without a cause ex nihilo. Remember, an efficient cause is what brings its effect into being. If a table came into being from a stack of wood without a cause, there would be nothing that brought the table into being and therefore it would come from nothing, even if the materials out of which the table was made did not likewise come into being out of nothing. We have to make a distinction between a thing, and that which the thing is made out of. Reason (i) could be rephrased as “being cannot come from non-being”. Even if something arises without a cause from some pre-existent material, that entity would have no cause that brought it into being, and therefore it would come from non-being. Concerning (ii), my opponent raises the same objection as he does to (i). But this is plainly false. We could rephrase (ii) as, “If something could come into being without a cause ex material, ex deo, ex nihilo or sans ex without a cause, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn’t come into being without a cause ex materia, ex deo, ex nihilo or sans ex. ” Therefore (ii) rules out all uncaused things, no matter the origin of the material of which they are composed. But (iii) did see some substantial interaction. He rightly chastises me for not expanding on this line of evidence, but when the character limit is 8,000, you have to make some cuts. I will expand on my thoughts here. In every day experience, we see that whatever begins to exist has a cause. We have no experience of something coming into being without a cause. Therefore, we can make an inductive generalization that whatever begins to exist has a cause. My opponent says that our experience is only of things beginning to exist ex materia, so we just don’t know whether the same principles apply to things that begin to exist ex nihilo, such as the universe. While this claim could be challenged (it seems quite plausible that a series of mental states is an immaterial sequence of causes and effects), it needn’t be. For, in the absence of any reason to think that things which begin to exist ex nihilo cannot have causes, the inductive generalization goes through. What my opponent would have to show is that we have overriding reasons to think that things which begin to exist ex nihilo cannot have causes, which would serve to outweigh the inductive evidence. His example of male and female persons carrying babies illustrates my point. The reason the inductive evidence that all adult females can carry babies fails to establish that all adult persons can carry babies is that we have biological evidence that males cannot carry babies. But my opponent has given no “biological evidence”, so to speak, that things cannot arise ex nihilo with a cause. Therefore, the inductive evidence goes through. For these reasons, I hold to the stronger causal principle enunciated in premise (1), that whatever begins to exist, whether ex materia, ex deo, ex nihilo, or sans ex, has a cause. (2) The Universe Began to Exist Here my opponent and I are largely in agreement. But, he says, to the best of our knowledge, there was no existing state of affairs prior to the universe. I completely agree. Time began to exist along with the universe, and therefore there cannot be anything prior to the beginning. It seems he’s confused, though, when he says that this implies not even nothingness existed prior to the universe. Here it seems he’s reifying negative terms. By “nothing”, I do not mean something which has the property of nothingness. I mean “no thing. ” To say nothing existed prior to the universe is not to say that there was a state of nothingness prior to the universe, but that there was no state of anything prior to the universe. The following exchange illustrates my point: “Nothing stopped the wave at it crashed down on the city. ” “Oh, thank God the wave was stopped! ” “What? No, nothing stopped the wave. ” “I know! I’m thanking God that the wave was stopped. ” “It wasn’t stopped though! ” “But you said nothing stopped it! ” “No! I meant that not anything stopped it! ” “Well why didn’t you just say so? !” Again, by “nothing” I mean “not anything. ” With agreement reached on premise (2), let’s move on. (3) Therefore, the Universe has a Cause This follows logically and necessarily from the two premises, and we’ve seen no objections that imply it does not follow. (4) If the Universe has a Cause, that Cause is a Spaceless, Timeless, Changeless, Immaterial, Beginningless, Uncaused, Enormously Powerful Mind Here we’ve seen no objections by my opponent. I would like to add that because the cause of the universe cannot be before the beginning of the universe, it must be simultaneous with it. God’s willing the universe into being is simultaneous with the beginning of the universe, and therefore does not contradict the idea that there was nothing prior to the beginning of the universe. (5) Therefore, the Cause of the Universe is a Spaceless, Timeless, Changeless, Immaterial, Beginningless, Uncaused, Enormously Powerful Mind My opponent does make some passing remarks that creation ex nihilo violates my first line of evidence for premise (1), (i) something cannot come from nothing. To avoid confusion, we can rephrase this principle as being cannot come from non-being. Even if the universe is created out of nothing, it does not come from non-being. In this case, the universe (being) comes from God (being). He is the efficient cause of the universe, and therefore being comes from being, and so does not violate (i). The floor is all yours, Dakota.