The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

Logical validityThe logical validity of a syllogism is not contingent on the content of its premises. If you believe that the the second premise commits the fallacy of composition, that is an objection to the second premise; if you believe that in defending myself against that claim I contradict my defence of the first premise, that is an objection to the first premise. What it is not is an objection to the logical validity of this argument. Formally speaking this is a valid argument, the form of which bears repeating:All M is PAll S is M∴ All S is PUnless Pro finds fault with the rules of formal logic, the logical validity of the KCA stands. The particulars of his objection to what he considers a contradiction between my rebuttal to his charge of committing the fallacy of composition by saying that the universe began to exist and my rebuttal to his objections to the first premise will be dealt with in the section on the second premise where they will be in a more appropriate context.Premise 1Con seems to believe that a shed is a "meaningless verbal label we arbitrarily place" on things that fit our conceptions. I say a shed is a thing. It is a thing with a form and a practical use quite different to that of a tree or nails, just as the nail is quite different from the metal which makes them up. To say that a shed is not a thing merely because we have bothered to name it is to cease making sense for the sake of the noble art of missing the point. If we once doubt the shed is a thing because we would then be committed to the idea that it had to start existing at some point in the process of its construction we would then have to doubt whether the conception this meaningless label is placed on exists either, as it was conceived by another reconstituted mass of always-has-been. Either the shed is a thing which was designed to fit a thing called a conception dreamed up by another thing called a man or we must deny that we are ourselves as a necessary expedient to denying God.I am glad to say we are not committed to this. The point that is missed by this odd line of argumentation is that however you wish to define "beginning to exist" we are arguing Al-Gazali's argument and not Mr. Madara's or my own. Only by accepting his definition of the terms can we address the validity of his argument, as changing what words are supposed to signify will only help us refute an argument that was never made. Al-Gazali was not completely ignorant about the fact that houses are made of bricks, and when he attributed the existence of the house to the architect he was not attributing to him the miracle of creating the mortar ex-nihilo. He understood that when a sesame seed grew into a plant, it was not creating matter as it went, but unfolding potentialities of already existing matter. Premise 2To begin let us set aside quickly the charge that to say that sheds begin to exist contradicts the claim that the universe as a whole begins to exist. Pro has failed to show that there is a contradiction there. That universe began to exist has no bearing on things within it having a beginning as well. It is so bizarre a claim as to require greater justification than the mere assertion. As it is we see two distinct premises: 1 That things which begin to exist have a cause of their existence. 2. That the universe itself taken as a whole is one such thing. Nothing in this indicates that what is contained in the universe is not.Pro seems to consider the fact that the Big Bang theory as formulated by father Georges Lemaitre has suffered changes as more facts were taken into consideration casts an unassailable doubt on the idea that the universe had a beginning. This is the same logic used by opponents of the theory of Evolution who say that there have been so many changes from the theory as formulated by Charles Darwin to that which is commonly defended by biologists today(1) that we ought to completely do away with it in favor of the more uniform and changeless Intelligent Design theory. The addition of inflation and dark matter and energy are not, as Pro's source seems to hint, last ditch efforts to hold up a dying theory, but are rather the best current explanations of observed phenomena. An unchanging theory is not what we expect to find in the realm of science, not even Newton or Einstein's theories have withstood the test of time without modifications.Mr. Madara now embraces the fact that the laws of physics seem to break down at the Big Bang singularity, admitting that this negates his objection about the first law of thermodynamics. This idea of multiple Big Bangs caused by branes doesn't, however, allow for an escape from the absolute beginning of the universe. One of our friendly neighborhood commenter beat me to the mention of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem(2), which took me a hellishly long and arduous time to read and an even longer time to understand, as well as the previously cited talk by Hawkins(3) share the majority view that cyclical models, while interesting, so not avoid the need for a beginning of the universe. Hawkins insists that the Big Bang is the beginning of everything (time-space and matter-energy) whereas the BGV theorem actually allows for the existence of a multiverse, but then says that the multiverse itself cannot avoid the question as it must by necessity have a beginning as well. They show that any universe that on average expands cannot be past-eternal, and this includes brane models:"In some versions of the cyclic model the brane space-times are everywhere expanding, so our theorem immediately implies the existence of a past boundary at which boundary conditions must be imposed. In other versions, there are brief periods of contraction, but the net result of each cycle is an expansion."Premise 3Pro insists on having his cake and eating it too. He posits a possible turn of events in which the universe does indeed have a beginning to its existence, that this beginning does indeed call for a cause; yet that cause is none other than the universe itself. Time, of course, has nothing to do with it. The fact that there was no time before the creation of time-space and matter-energy does not exempt the universe from the laws of causation or justify us from desisting from scientific and philosophical curiosity when this curiosity might lead us to conclusions we would rather not accept.The passive object of causation cannot be the originator of the change, because one must have the actuality in order to motive something beyond potentiality. Just as one must be emitting photons in order to give light, something must have heat in order to warm something else or have energy in order to do work on something else. Something must exist in order to bring something else into existence. Pro posits a paradox and hopes we don't examine it too closely.Sources:(1) http://epicofevolution.com...(2) http://arxiv.org...(3) http://www.hawking.org.uk...