The Kalam Cosmological Argument Successfully Demonstrates its Conclusion.

It's been a good mental exercise, and an escape from summer boredom. Eddington Quote This is an interesting quote, and while I couldn't find it on the web, I did find some of his work on the so-called "Arrow of Time. " The question seems simple enough: why does time appear to flow in only one direction? After all, when one considers the scientific 4 dimensional model of the universe, time seems very similar to other 3 dimensions, and there is certainly nothing to suggest that there is a fundamental difference between what we would call "forwards" and "backwards" in time. The answer (or at least a possibility suggested by Eddington) is that time is defined by the increase in entropy over time. Entropy can loosely be said to resemble disorder, and according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it increases over time. So rather than talking about "energy", which is of course conserved (mostly, with a few exceptions), Eddington appears to be talking about gradually increasing entropy. All that this implies is that at the Big Bang, entropy was at an absolute minimum. So this means we can not only distinguish time as a direction from the 3 normal space directions, but we can give time a "forward direction" which is not arbitrary. However, one may not assume that the universe is caused simply because there is an arrow of time. [1] Pro seems to be consistently thinking about the universe without considering its temporal component. I am trying to simplify the extremely complex mathematical structure of the universe, and I hope I have succeeded in doing so. My hope is that I can give a new way of thinking about the universe that explains the scientific concept of Minkowski space time and general relativity so that my objections to the idea that the universe had a "beginning" make sense to someone who isn't a physicist, and unfortunately it appears that I failed to communicate this idea to everyone as pro seemed to not be addressing the argument itself. Certainly the entropy argument confirms the existence of the Big Bang, but certainly not the beginning of the entire space-time continuum. Pro's 3 Points 1. Again, by definition the universe is everything that exists including time. Science views time as a property of the universe. [2] 2. The B theory does apply to our specific universe, as I specifically showed using convincing scientific arguments which pro has failed to even address, much less refute. 3. It's not that I dislike your unique version of a cosmological argument, it's that you have (until just now) failed to define your terms. Now that you have, I will take a critical look at them. The Theisticscuffles Cosmological Argument Pro has come up with a definition for "beyond time. " However, as he is about to discover, crafting definitions is harder than it looks. Beyond time= "non time" or "lacks time" Now, what's wrong with this definition? Well, let's say that, purely for the sake of argument, the universe is actually unbounded in the past and future, i. e. eternal. Well, the universe would certainly not "lack time", as it is eternal. And it clearly wouldn't be "non time" either. So the universe would NOT be beyond time. We can then use our best friends, logical symbols, to make a conclusion. So without further ado, let's define EU as an eternal universe, BT as "beyond time", and C as "cause". ~BT>C EU=~BT EU>C In other words, an eternal universe isn't beyond time. And that which is not beyond time must have a cause. So an eternal universe must have a cause! Except that is ridiculous and clearly a flawed conclusion. Even the Kalam admits that eternal objects don't require a cause in its 1st premise. Clearly then, the premise that whatever isn't beyond time has a cause is false as pro has defined "beyond time", else even an eternal universe would need a cause. Pro crafted a very clever definition of "beyond time" designed to defeat my conception of the universe as containing all time, but unfortunately he didn't account for an eternal universe, which would also contain all time, much more time than the universe in which we live. This is why I asked for a rigorous definition of "beyond time"; almost invariably, the definition will have a fundamental flaw in it. So let's get back to the topic of the debate, the Kalam cosmological argument, and consider the Theisticscuffles cosmological argument dead. Simultaneity, Mackie, and Relativity I am extremely interested to read what Mackie has to say about causality and have requested his book from my library. Until it arrives, however, I will have to give my independent analysis of why "simultaneous causality", as I shall call it, does not apply to the real world. Temporal priority might (and I will reserve judgement on this until I have seen Mackie's full case) not be conceptually necessary for causal priority, but certainly in the real world it is. The best way to refute this comes back to a concept I introduced way back in round 2: relativity of simultaneity. Pro is contending that a cause may happen before or simultaneously to its effect; I say only before. According to special relativity, two events which are simultaneous to one another according to my frame of reference are not simultaneous in another frame of reference. If an effect and a cause occur simultaneously according to my perspective, then there exists a perspective according to which the cause happened AFTER the effect, which both of us agree is impossible. If one does the math involved with the physics, the conclusion is: event A can affect event B only if the difference in time multiplied by the speed of light is greater than the difference between the events and B doesn't precede A. So according to physics, a cause must be before an effect. [3] So what is the difference between temporal and causal priority? If event A strictly precedes event B, then it is temporally "prior. " This doesn't mean event A is causally "prior" to event B. However, if, without event A, event B wouldn't have occurred, then A is causally "prior" to B. I have sufficiently demonstrated that, at least in the real universe, causal priority requires temporal priority, and therefore causality outside of time is not causality in the sense that we experience it. In some theoretical universe obeying different laws, this might not be true, but it is for the real world. So we can safely conclude that causality requires time, and as there was no time "prior" to the Big Bang, there was no causality. Limits of Inductive Arguments Pro dropped this argument. He has no answer to it. Therefore, the Kalam fails. It's that simple. Was the resolution upheld? No. 1. Pro's only "proof" of premise 1 of the Kalam was inductive, and I have conclusively demonstrated his inductive argument to be invalid. 2. The universe is a 4 dimensional object and therefore didn't "begin to exist" like objects within it do. 3. I conclusively showed that Craig's definition of "begins to exist" doesn't apply to the universe. 4. Causality cannot be simultaneous in the real world. Causality requires time, which did not exist "prior" to the Big Bang. Therefore, the Big Bang cannot have a cause. 5. When pro finally defined "beyond time", his own argument broke down. It's been a pleasure, Theisticscuffles. I hope that everyone learned something from this debate; I know I did. Please (obviously) don't introduce new arguments in the final round. I'll have a tough time responding. Sources 1. . http://www.informationphilosopher.com... 2. . http://arxiv.org... Warning: highly technical source about properties of time. 3. . http://www.pitt.edu...