The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

I wish to thank Rational_Thinker for once again taking me up on this challenge and for approaching it from a side that I haven’t considered before. Also, a quick retraction. I copied and pasted my argument from another debate where I was using the KCA to argue for God’s existence. I didn’t proofread very well before posting, but the KCA is not, on the surface, concerned with what the cause of the universe is, just that the universe had a cause. Therefore, my opening argument should have ended before the paragraph where I asked “what of this cause?” Thankfully Rational didn’t engage any of these arguments so he didn’t use up any needed space in his argument. The KCA, to reiterate, is as follows: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The KCA is definitely a valid argument, in that the conclusion naturally follows from its premises. An argument can be unsound but still be valid. But it is a sound argument? I believe it is, and the analogies Con used do not accurately reflect the KCA. Russell’s Paradox The first argument Con used, when compared to the KCA, are like apples and oranges (pun most definitely intended). Con is correct that oranges do not belong to the subset apples. However, the universe, in this argument, does not belong to the subset “things,” but “things which begin to exist.” If it can be shown that the universe began to exist, then premise one would show that the universe had a cause. Con, himself, realizes that the traditional definition of universe is in mind here with the KCA. This is appropriate, since the Cosmological Argument dates back to the ancient world. And if modern philosophers or scientists try to disprove the CA (or the KCA) by using a different definition for “universe” than that which is intended in the argument itself, they are guilty of the fallacy of equivocation. In fact, even well-respected Atheists agree with this definition. Carl Sagan once expressed the idea that “the Cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.” [1] I don’t see that Russell’s objection that the universe cannot be a “set” of itself is valid. First, the universe is an actual existent entity, not an abstract concept like numbers. Furthermore, it is a contingent entity made up of many parts. If all of the parts that make up the universe were to suddenly vanish, the universe, itself, would vanish. So the claim that the universe is not a “thing” has not been supported. The universe is an entity, which is defined as, “something that has a real existence; thing.” [2] The universe certainly has a real existence, or we would not be here right now to question its very existence. Premise 1 – Everything that begins to exist has a cause. When I say this is “uncontroversial,” I mean that it is certainly a scientific concept. Nothing happens without a cause. My door cannot open unless I physically open or the wind blows it open. A ball will not roll unless someone pushes it. Even a ball cannot roll down a hill unless someone first places it (or rolls it) onto the hill in the first place. However, even using Con’s definition of self-evident we can see that the principle is, in fact, self-evident. Con defines it as a proposition that it known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. Professor Smith says that something is self-evident if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But that’s not what the definition says. It is self-evident because it is true unto itself, even without proof. Contrary to Professor Smith, one does not have to accept the fact as true for it to be so. Additionally, one would only reject this principle if one has agenda: trying to disprove the philosophical concept that non-being cannot produce being (that is, that “something” cannot come from “nothing”). This is what quantum mechanics asserts, but I will get to that in a moment. Premise 2 – The universe began to exist. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not neglect the First Law. First of all, it does not rely on the A-Theory of time (with apologies to Dr. William Lane Craig, I don’t believe the KCA necessitates the A-Theory of time). Secondly, the First Law of Thermodynamics only applies within the universe itself. This does not refer to Creation. God created the universe ex nihilo, and created it in such a way that it would eventually run down. The universe was never meant to last forever. Once the universe was created, the laws of thermodynamics were set in place. There is no reason to believe that the creation of the universe would be subject to these laws. Here is where scientists equivocate on the word “nothing.” In philosophy, “nothing” is literally “nothing.” It doesn’t even exist. It has no qualities. “Nothing” is literally “non-existence,” and non-existence cannot create existence. The “nothing” of quantum mechanics is a “sea of transient particles.” The scientist that Con quoted even affirms that the “nothing” of quantum mechanics is not really nothing, and therefore cannot be used to refute the KCA. Noted Atheist Sam Harris doesn’t even seem to buy it. [3] Regarding Con’s argument from how time acts, I don’t think this can actually be proven. We humans live in a linear flow of time. We cannot go back in time, and we can only go forward at the rate we currently do. Time travel may or may not ever be possible, but we can only speculate about that which is beyond our means to experience. But I believe the philosophical evidence to be stronger that there has not been an infinite series of moments. Just as it would be impossible to traverse an infinite amount of steps, it would also be impossible to traverse an infinite amount of moments, so “today” would never have arrived. I don’t think Con has sufficiently shown how there can be no boundary with a finite amount of time or how that would mean there really was no beginning, aside from an appeal to authority by quoting Stephen Hawking. It seems that if there was a finite amount of time, then there must have been a beginning. Humans are only alive for 70 to 80 years, on average, so we can pinpoint a time when their lives began. Something from Nothing Claiming that a rock “dreams about nothing” is a category error fallacy. Rocks cannot dream about anything. And claiming that they “dream about nothing” is to misunderstand what “nothing” really is. There are times humans seem to dream about nothing, but in reality everyone enters REM sleep every night (unless their sleep is interrupted) and they dream, despite not remembering it. So even dreams don’t actually describe the “nothing” of philosophy. And Con continues to misunderstand what “nothing” actually is. Absolute nothingness is the absence of all existence; it literally does not exist. If there was no existence, only absolute nothingness, then it would not be correct to state that absolute nothingness exists. Conclusion I have adequately supported the KCA as a valid, sound argument. Con has not undermined it. You cannot use quantum mechanics to undermine the KCA, and Russell’s Paradox is not a comparative analogy to the KCA. I look forward to Con’s rebuttal. [1] Sagan, Carl, Cosmos, 1980, p. 4.[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://www.samharris.org...