God Exists

You have been a great opponent and I look forward to debating you once again. In efforts to prove God exists, PRO has used the Kalam Cosmological Argument. We will see why this argument holds no water and it is far from convincing. I will be refuting just the cosmological argument. Premise 1 is false as we know something does, in fact, come from nothing. These are vacuum fluctuations. They are uncaused, random events. Victor Stenger notes: The theological significance of inflationary cosmology is this: It shows how the universe can have formed from nothing, in complete chaos (maximum entropy), and have order form spontaneously, without violating any known principles of physics. That is, it provides an economical explanation of the origin of the universe without creation or design. A creator is not required by the data. In general relativity, space-time can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless space-time can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "space-time foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum. " Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10^-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe. [1] In fact, the truth of the matter is that these vacuum fluctuations are possibly what caused the Big Bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility—the possibility that the universe is a gigantic vacuum fluctuation. [2] Since I have shown that “not everything that begins to exist has a cause” is false, then we can conclude that the entire syllogism is (most likely) false. However, let’s continue with premise 2. Premise 2 is wrong on several accounts. The most crucial issue is that unless we know that this premise is true; then the whole argument fails. It is possible that the Big Bang was a local event, and that we are in a much larger multiverse. This is called the M-Theory. It is indeed a quantum leap to say “The universe has a cause” and to turn around and say, “That cause has to be God”—especially the God we defined it as. | Conclusion | In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least: 1. Is God the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist? o If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question? o If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated? 2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world? o If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question? o If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God? 3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself? o If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings? [ Bibliography [1] Stenger, Victor. Inflation and Creation . http://www.colorado.edu... [2] Pagels, Heinz. 1982. The Cosmic Code. Toronto: Bantam.