The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

It’s not always fascinating stuff, but it is necessary stuff. So then, let’s take an overview perspective and see what progress has been made. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Metaphysical Support for Premise (1) Throughout the debate, I’ve defended the following metaphysical/philosophical argument for premise (1): 1.1. Something cannot come from nothing. 1.2. If something came into being without a cause, it would come from nothing. 1.3. Therefore, something cannot come into being without a cause. Con originally presented two general objections: (1) the key terms in the argument are undefined, and (2) the “boat thought-experiment” is unintelligible, for various reasons. Over the course of the debate, Con's dropped both objections. Now of course, not having a reason to think an argument unsound is not a reason to think it is sound. In support of (1.1), I gave the carpenter thought-experiment. I’ll not rehash it here, and so far as I can tell, Pro came around to accepting its validity. So we both agree that something cannot come from nothing. Premise (1.2) is true in virtue of the definition of “cause. ” We mean both the preexisting materials from which the thing is made (the material cause) and the actual producer of the thing (the efficient cause). Previously, Con responded by arguing that (1.2) was false, giving the example of an ice sculpture spontaneously originating from a block of ice. But as I pointed out, this isn’t an example of something coming into being without a cause, as I defined it. For the ice sculpture still has a material cause: the original block of ice. Thus, it’s not a counter-example to (1.2). Con seems to agree, so I’ll bypass any further objections. Inductive Argument Premise (1) is uniformly verified and never falsified in our experience of the world. We can reason inductively from our experience of things coming into being with causes to the conclusion that all things that begin to exist have causes. Con presented three objection throughout the debate, and has since dropped all of them. In short, not only do we have good philosophical grounds for the causal principle, we have good empirical grounds for it as well. So I think we can both agree that everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. Philosophical Support - Actual Infinity I’ve defended the following philosophical argument for the beginning of the universe: 2.1 If the universe never began to exist, then there have been an actually infinite number of things (i. e. , events prior to today). 2.2. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist. 2.3. Therefore, it is false that the universe never began to exist. 2.4. Therefore, the universe began to exist. I’ll refer readers back to the first round for the reasoning undergirding each premise. Surprisingly, Con agrees with the argument’s conclusion, in a sense. He thinks it shows that space and time began to exist, but not that matter and energy began to exist. But remember, I gave an argument for against this thesis. If he’s to remain rational in holding his view, he must respond to my argument. As I said, matter and energy are necessarily in constant flux; they cannot exist changelessly. Two reasons here. (1) Forces of attraction and repulsion exist between different material particles, guaranteeing that such particles cannot exist in a perfect state of rest. (2) Heat is the motion of molecules, so if a motionless state is to be achieved, everything must exist at absolute zero. But a state of absolute zero is physically impossible, because gravity causes matter to collapse in on itself (which generates heat). For these two reasons, a state of changelessness is physically impossible. And the point is, the above philosophical argument drives us back to a changeless state. Therefore, matter and energy, as well as space and time, must’ve begun to exist. Scientific Support - Big Bang Cosmology The argument from Big Bang cosmology is two-tired. First, one shows that the Standard Model predicts a beginning to the universe. In support, I provided arguments from authority (and of course it’s no refutation of said-arguments to say that you can't access the book one of the quotes is found in). Specifically, I quoted cosmologist P. C. W. Davis. Let me give the full quote here: If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself. [1] Further, I cited cosmologists Barrow and Tipler, who write that “[a]t this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo. ” [2] To drive the point home, let me provide a third quote from four of the world’s leading cosmologists: The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere. [3] What can we conclude about the Big Bang model? In short, at some point in the past, all space, time, matter, and energy began to exist. We have an origin of the universe out of nothing, ex nihilo. This, then, is the proper understanding of the Standard Model. But, Con objects, “[t]ime didn't begin to exist until the big bang, at which point the singularity no longer existed. ” This is not correct. Look at the first and second lines of the third quote above. It says that space and time were created in the event of infinite density (i. e. , the singularity). So space and time begin at the singularity itself, not somehow “after” it. Second, one argues that the Standard Model is correct in its prediction of a beginning. In my opening statement, I provided three lines of evidence to support this. Con never responded to those arguments. They stand on one side of the scale. On the other, Con erects the first law of thermodynamics, which he thinks implies that matter and energy must be eternal. But this is surely false. I defy him to quote a single reputable scientist who thinks the law of conservation and energy requires the universe to be eternal. On the contrary, the law of conservation is regarded to hold within the universe. But it’s not violated if the whole arena of space and time come into being, for this is beyond the scope of its application. [4] If Con thinks the law can successfully be extrapolated beyond this scope, he needs to give some argument. But he has not done this. With all of the evidence pointing to a cosmic beginning, we may regard premise (2) as more plausibly true than false. 3. The universe has a cause. 4. If the universe has a cause, then there exists a transcendent, personal Creator. The cause of the universe must be beyond space and time, because it created space and time. Therefore, it must be spaceless and timeless. From its spacelessness and timelessness, we can infer its immateriality and changelessness, respectively. Philosophers have proposed only two entities that can fit this description: (1) abstract object, and (2) unembodied minds. We’ve seen why it can’t be an abstract object. But Con suggests a plethora of alternatives. And here it seems I’ve been too kind. Why did I not consider those alternatives in my original presentation? Because they don’t possess the properties deduced above. They don’t even make the cut, much less are they plausible. I deny that Con's suggested alternatives “could not be disproven”, or that they're “non-falsifiable. ” I gave specific objections to each alternative hypothesis, objections Con never responded to. So they have indeed been disproven. But he does think those objections can be applied to the hypothesis of mind as well. This is silly. For example, you can't argue that an unembodied mind is incoherent because invsible pandas can't be pink (one of the objections I raised). Or again, its not an objection to the hyopthesis of mind to say that we have good grounds for believing in space and time (another objection I raised). Con cannot get away with making heavy on assertions and light on argument. Con asserts that there are an “infinite number of possible alternative explanations, each of which also could not be disproven. ” But that’s all this is: another empty assertion. Con couldn’t even come up with three non-disprovable alternatives, much less an infinite number. Further, I responded to all four objections to the hypothesis of Mind, and Con never gave a counter response. In short, we have one plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe: an unembodied mind. There is no plausible alternative. Therefore, I conclude that there exists a transcendent, personal Creator of the universe[1] Refer to second round[2] Refer to second fourth round[3] Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, "Will the Universe Expand Forever? " Scientific American (March 1976), p. 65. [4] Inspiration for this response from: William Lane Craig, . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...