The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Thanks Quantum Mechanics Quantum Mechanics seems to refute the Kalam. One example is quantum vacuum fluctuations. Under the mainstream interpretation of QM, they begin to exist with no cause. “In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.”[ Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics] “Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless space-time can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature.” - Victor Stenger [ http://www.colorado.edu...] Another attack from quantum mechanics comes from a strange concept called “Retro-Causality”. That is the idea the an effect can happen before its cause. As strange as it may sound, it has been observed in quantum mechanics [http://arstechnica.com...] [http://arxiv.org...]. This has implications on the KCA, first it’s a plausible cause (more on this later) and second, it creates a paradox for the KCA proponent. Pro can either 1. Accept the A theory of time and reject premise one. The A theory says only the present exists -the block theory says the past exists too, but the argument still works- this would mean the effect is uncaused. Because the cause doesn't exist yet and couldn’t be the cause of anything. If you want to keep premise one, you can go with the second option. 2. Accept the B theory of time and reject premise two. Under this view, since the effect happens before the cause, the present can affect the past and there can be a future cause for an event. This however destroys the Kalam. By the way, this doesn’t dispute the Big Bang or scientific evidence at all. 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; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, 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 [The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184] Epistemological Error Trying to figure out the cause attempts to inquire about the unknown. Time, space, and matter as we know it may have began at the Big Bang. What was before the Big Bang, we’re completely in the dark about. We can only know what was at the starting point of the Big Bang. We don’t know if time, space, and matter were existing before the Big Bang, only that they were brought about in our Universe by the Big Bang. We have no idea what was before, to inquire what was, is simply meaningless. Our reasoning must confirm to the universe. How can we extend our reasoning to what existed before? Let's say, in my room there’s a door, behind this door is a portal into another dimension. In this dimension there can be anything, things which we have no understanding, things which are not possible in this world, things we could never conceive. There could be another set of laws, or they could be the same as ours. Is it really reasonable to make a positive claim of what’s in that dimension? I don’t think so. One can make arguments for what exists in it, but the conclusion can never be rationally accepted and such tasks would be useless since we’re ignorant of what’s in there. We can have inquire what’s in it, but we can never claim for sure what’s in there, without going in. Any claim is just as possible as another, since inside the dimension is meaningless to us. Now, this dimension is before the universe. This debating over the cause is the same as debating what’s in the dimension. Claiming that a personal being caused it can’t be accepted, since there could be something that fits these attributes and not be personal. It's simply not a coherent concept. Why God? Pro tries to prove the cause was God. However, he doesn’t do a good job in doing so. He never proved the cause is a sentient cause. Pro himself says the cause only must be something like God. The KCA we’re arguing is for a sentient creator. Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. I can think of many plausible causes that aren’t God. Although we can’t know for certain, I’m arguing that each of these are possible and thus a God needs more reasons to accept the God hypothesis. Non-Sentient force. Why can't the cause be an immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things? Since this force was eternally creating things, one day the inevitable happened, energy, space, and time was created in a powerful reaction destroying everything including this force to create the two. The rest is history. Why should we think God caused the Universe instead of this force? Ekpyrotic Universe This model says “...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension.” [http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...] Why accept God over the Ekpyrotic model? Retro-Causality I’ve shown the retro-causality is possible. It may seem absurd, but it’s possible for an effect to happen before the cause. So why couldn’t the effect of the universe happen before the cause of it? Why accept God over retro-causality? Simultaneous causation This is the idea that cause and effect can happen simultaneously. So, the cause of the universe could have been simultaneous with the effect. DDO user Sargon put it this way "Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time." [http://www.debate.org...] Why should we accept God over simultaneous causation? Conclusion I’ve shown quantum mechanics damages the argument, the way of determining the cause rests on an epistemological error, and I gave 4 plausible ways the universe can begin without appealing to a God. Thanks, back to Pro.