The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Thanks to Pro P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause. A damage to premise 1 is Quantum mechanics. Under the mainstream interpretations of quantum physics, quantum vacuum fluctuations have no cause. “Even in a perfect vacuum—a region of space containing neither matter nor energy—particle-antiparticle pairs (such as an electron and its antiparticle opposite, the positron) constantly appear and disappear in a time span too short to observe. Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing—not even from energy—it so happens that no laws of physics are violated because the particle is annihilated by its corresponding antiparticle before either one can be detected. Furthermore, for such events not to happen would violate quantum physics, which cites, via Heisenberg’s principle again, the impossibility of determining exactly the energy content of a system at every moment in time. Hence, natural, quantum fluctuations of energy must occur in empty space, even when the average energy present is zero.” [1] “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.” [2] Science is predicated on the idea that there are explanations for why things happen, and we should go out and discover the cause of why it happened. It’s deeply anti-scientific to suggest that things can begin to exist without reason If something did begin to exist with no cause at all, this would still be under science, as they couldn't just ignore it. As demonstrated, there does exist scientific models and theories for things that begin to exist with no cause. Premise 2 and 3 I will not dispute. Pro gives us three possible ways the universe came to be. 1. Out of nothing 2. Eternally3. Began with a cause I will not dispute 2, however I will defend the possibility of 1 and show that 3 if true doesn't give any more to theism than atheism. Defending the possibility of 1.Pro says that out of nothing, nothing comes. However I believe this can't be ruled out. In nothing does there exist any laws that say something can't come from it? If no, then the claim is unsupported, if yes, it's not nothing. Pro gives 2 other arguments in attack of 1. Potentiality Pro says nothing has no potential to be something. However in nothing does there exist the law that says something needs potential to be actualized? This potential doesn't necessarily have to be a property, which brings us to your next argument. Property There's 2 problems with the argument. First, it's self refuting. If something can't come from nothing, then nothing would have to have some property that limits it. Second, if something could come from nothing, then this would be because of a lack of property. In order for “something can come from nothing” to be false, it would need some property limiting nothing. Removing that property would result in the possibility of something coming from nothing. If something cannot come from nothing, this begs the question “Can God do impossible things?” If yes, then doing something such as creating a rock he can't lift would be possible for him, but this would mean such a being can't exist. If no, then it must be logically possible for something to come from nothing. Natural model. There does exist plausible naturalistic mechanisms for the beginning of the universe. “...But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. Keep in mind E=mc^2 shows energy and matter are basically one in the same, they can transform into each other The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.[3] Edward Tryon said The laws of physics place no limit on the scale of vacuum fluctuations. The duration is of course subject to the restriction ΔEΔt ~ h, but this merely implies that our Universe has zero energy, which has already been made plausible.[4] Tryon's model is falsified, but he set the stage. There's newer updated models that use the same foundations as Tryon. Like Alexander Vilenkin's quantum tunneling model. His model states the universe came from an uncaused quantum tunneling event. [5] There's no reason to assume God when talking about the creation of the universe. Pro may point to Albert's review, however David Albert's review really seems to be arguing against Krauss' redefinition of nothing, not against uncaused vacuum fluctuations or fluctuation models. Why God? Pro gives reasons why he thinks the cause must be God. I will postulate there's a strange timeless, spaceless, complex, powerful and immaterial force that goes through many reactions called “Chroma” that is the origin of everything. What reasons should we accept God over the Chroma? His only reason is personal sentience. His argument is from Apeiron, but this argument is flawed and makes some assumptions. First, if no laws existed before the universe, there would be no law of causality, no PSR, no laws at all! There wouldn't even need to be a cause. Second, it only shows that our current laws couldn't exist before the universe. This is obvious, but why couldn't there exist some other laws before the universe? Why couldn't the Chroma exist with no laws governing it? Just like there's no laws governing God. Sentience need not apply, since the argument only shows something spatio- temporal can't create the universe, if valid. The resolution is negatedSources______________________________________________________________________________ [1] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu... [2] Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. [3] Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time [4] Tryon, Edward P. 1973. Is the universe a vacuum fluctuation? [5] http://www.mukto-mona.com...