Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1"Premise 1 is true by experience: we don't observe everyday objects coming into existence out of nothing, or we'd live in a very chaotic world. It's also true by metaphysical intuition: we can't conceive of a possible world where things come into existence uncaused."My opponent is correct that we don't see objects coming into existence out of nothing, this is because what we would refer to as "absolutely nothingness" doesn't exist. The only thing close we have to "nothing" is empty space, and when it comes to space, when we get down to the subatomic level, quantum fluctuations occur all the time. A particle and anti-particle pair will pop into existence and annihilate eachother in what would be otherwise empty space, and pop out of existence without any "trigger" cause. This is a generally known fact in physics, and this is allowed due to the Uncertainty Principle, which states that local hidden variables are impossible [1]."Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [2] Now what about causal principles? Well, these principles seem to break down at the subatomic level so we do have an example of something which resembles spontaneous creation from "nothing" (even if it isnot exactly creatio ex nihilo). Also, as far as objective causation is concerned (causation would be true, is beings with brains didn't exist), I would argue: P1: x has a cause, if x is a consequence of that which occurs earlier to x P2: There was no earlier to The Big Bang, the Planck Epoch (0 to 10−43 seconds) was the earliest period [2]P3: The universe could not have been a consequence of that which occurred earlier to the universeC: The universe is not something which had a causeWilliam Lane Craig tries to address arguments like mine, by appealing to simultaneous causation:"For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling... They[Atheists] might say that even simultaneous causation presupposes time. Yes, the cause and effect occur at the same time. But then why couldn't such a causal dependency exist timelessly?" - William Lane Craig [3]The problem is that for simultaneous causation to have occurred, the causal dependency must have involved the beginning of the existence of the chandelier, chain, and ceiling which occurred temporally prior to the effect in question. Also, other conditions which existed earlier to this simultaneous causation must have existed before the effect as well, thus, even simultaneous causation can only occur if it is the result of that which occurred earlier. So it seems, that even the idea of a timeless causal dependency doesn't make much sense because even causal dependency presupposes time. It also seems, that Premise 1 of my argument is not phased in light of simultaneous causation.What does this mean? If God exists he is the cause of the universe, but there are good reasons to believe that causation does not past the limits of space-time. Theists are simply just using spatio-temporal experiences and trying to apply them to the universe itself fallaciously. Thus, God probably did not create, or cause the universe to begin to exist, because there is no earlier to The Big Bang for this cause to exist.Premise 2 "Premise 2 is true for two reasons. First, we have scientific evidence that the universe came into existence in a Big Bang singularity, which was the first moment in time for the universe. Second, we know that the universe can't exist forever, because if there was an infinite past then we would never get to the present, and no matter how long we wait there will never be an infinite number of future moments between now and an infinite point in the future."Now, it is true that the universe has a finite past. However, philosophers such as Atheist Adolf Grunbaum and Theist Richard Swineburne have argued that something only beings to exist if there was a time earlier at which it didn't exist. This makes sense, however there is no "earlier" to The Big Bang in which the universe couldn't have existed. [4] Now, lets say that both of those philosophers are wrong, this would mean that the universe had a real beginning somehow, which is supported by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe paper. [5] Alexander Vilenkin has created a model which explains how this could happen, due to something coming from which resembles nothing, uncaused. Alexander Vilenkin’s model of cosmic origins [6] is mathematically and scientifically plausible (a model which infers the universe arising from a timeless empty geometry). This model describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It's plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model.Conclusion "Thus the argument proves the existence for a cause of the universe." The Kalam Cosmological Argument definitely fails to show logically that the universe requires a cause. It may seem reasonable on the surface, but once you dig into the implications of it's premises it falls apart. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://atheism.about.com...[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[4] http://www.colorado.edu...[5] http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...[6] http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...