The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Logically Sound

There can now be no omnipotent arguments or any other illogical attribute applied to God to make the KCA work beacuse the theist would theoretically have to prove a cause then God, not vice versa. Therefore, it would be illogical to apply any of God's attributes to justify any part of the premises. Premise 1My opponent argues that we know this premise is true due to reasoning and intuition. An inventor invents a telephone for example, therefore there is a clear principal of cause and effect at the macro-level within the universe involving it's parts. The problem is, when an inventor causes something to "begin to exist" (I may dig in to that termonology later) it's all made from pre-existing material, therefore, all of our intuition is based on creatio ex materia. We have absolutely no intuition regarding things comming into existence ex nihilo [1] because it's impossible (out of nothing, nothing comes). Therefore, the distinction must be made between causes ex materia and causes ex nihilo, because if the word "cause" is going to be used to describe both in this sense, then I'm affraid the Kalam Cosmological Argument is committing the equivocation fallacy. [2]Due to the fact that out of nothing, nothing comes. .. All causes must logically involve some sort of pre-existing physical state. There is a point I'm going to make that will be addressed further later, however I believe it needs to be said now. All of our intuition of cause and effect is based off of the parts within the universe, so to use our intuition regarding parts of the universe to provide case for a cause for the universe as a whole is likely committing the fallacy of composition. [3] P1: All examples of causes involve parts within the universe. P2: Our sense of cause and effect, is 100% based on parts within the universe. P3: The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some, or every part of the whole. P4: Claiming the universe must have had a cause is committing the fallacy of composition. P5: If claiming that the universe must have had a cause may be fallacious, then it’s not logical to do so. Uncaused Effects1) Radioactive atom decay"Radioactive decay is the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles (ionizing radiation). The emission is spontaneous, in that the atom decays without any physical interaction with another particle from outside the atom" [4]2) Scale-free density perturbationsSpontaneous creation of almost scale-free density perturbations in an inflationary universe occur. [5]spon·ta·ne·ous Adjective: Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus: [6]Human's being spontaneous is one thing, however "things" being spontaneous indicate no external cause. Also there is a misconception about uncaused events that needs to be cleared up:People will say that the back-drop is the cause of uncaused events, for example, the Quantum Vacuum is the cause of Quantum Fluctuations even though they "seem" uncaused. Let me paint an analogy for why this type of argument is flawed:If there is a pond and you see a ripple, the pond itself isn't the cause of the ripple just because the ripple couldn't happen without the pond. There must have been a fish jump up, a rock being skipped, rain drops hitting it or something external causing the ripple, the pond itself can't cause the ripple. Now lets say you ran a controlled experiment, took out any possible external causes, and ripples were occuring on the pond all over erradically and spontaneously. .. This is basically what uncaused events are like that occur on small scales, they are not from nothing, but they still have no external cause. "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 Premise 2Rebutting My Opponent's Philosophical Argument:The gist of this argument is that if the singularity has always existed then essentially time has always existed and an infinite regress is illogical so the universe had a beggining. The problem for my opponent, is that the same concept could be applied to the hypothetical external cause being asserted. If this "cause" has always existed then essentially time must have always existed or else there would have been no time to cause anything. The point is, unless my opponent plans on committing the special pleading fallacy then it's safe to say we can throw away this philosophical argument. The reason I say this, is because it does just as much damage to his "cause" existing without time as it does the singularity. The Scientific Argument"Essentially, these confirmations support the Big Bang Theory which claims that the Universe does, in fact, have a beginning"My opponent doesn't seem to grasp the concept of what The Big Bang theory says, even The Bare Naked Ladies got it right:"Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait. .. "Of course I'm not using the Bare Naked Ladies as a source (lol), it's just obvious that people who advocate this Kalam Cosmolgical Argument plainly don't understand what the theory actually states. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. " [7]The Big Bang describes the expansion and devlopement of our known universe from a single point called the singularity that existed 13.7 billion years ago, however it does not however say the singularity began to exist ex nihilo. Once more, since you cannot get something from absolutely nothing then the universe existing ex nihilo is impossible. Re-Cap1. Non of God's attributes can logically be aplied within the context of this debate to support any of the premises.2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument's defenders are committing the equivocation fallacy by using the "cause" to describe both ex materia and hypothetical/ illogical ex nihilo causes by using a "glossing over" technique.3. Claiming that because something is true for every part of something (everything in the universe needs causes), then it must be true for the whole (the universe as a whole needs a cause) may be committing the fallacy of composition.4. Not everything needs an external cause.5. My opponent's philosophical argument hurts his "cause" as much as my "singularity" if the same concept is applied to it (of course I will be expecting some form of special pleading in the next round, but hopefully Pro is more clever than that). 6. The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the univere from a singularirty, it does not claim the singularity began to exist creatio ex nihilo. Conclusion The Kalam Cosmological Argument is extremely fallacious any way you look at it, therefore, it cannot be logically sound at the same time. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://onegoodmove.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...; [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...; [5] . http://prd.aps.org... [6] . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...