Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

1: There is no reason to think that the casual principle is always true. (Fallacy of Composition objection) Con's first argument is basically, the causal principle being true in the entire universe, doesn't mean the entire universe has a cause. Similar to that of geometry. This is objecting that the Kalam commits the composition fallacy. This one is a tough one to tackle, because it's a good and valid objection. I'll try my best. It's not argued that because everything in this set of the universe we see has a cause, that the universe itself has a cause. Craig gives 3 reasons for believing premise 1 [1].1. Something can't come from nothing.2. If something can come from nothing, why doesn't everything come from nothing.3. It's intuitively true. One can define the Universe as a contingent thing and get around this objection. 1. Every contingent thing or state of affairs that begins to exist has an efficient cause.2. The earliest state of the universe (call it t1) is a contingent state of affairs that began to exist.3. So, the earliest state of the universe (t1) had an efficient cause. [2] The conservation of energy does say that matter & energy can transform into one another, but if the Universe was eternal and energy never began to exist, we would've underwent an endless expansion ending the universe [3]. All the energy would've been used up. 2: Conservation of energy can be violated in quantum mechanics. Con's argument is assuming the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen is just one interpretation out of many [4]. We have no idea which one is true, why should we believe the Copenhagen interpretation? Even with these indeterministic interpretations, these particles don't begin to exist in nothing. They still exist in space-time and are governed by the laws of physics. Furthermore, I think a link between these vacuum fluctuations and the beginning of the universe needs to exist in order to cast doubt in the conclusion. Finally, quantum mechanics is very complex, confusing and incomplete. We may find a cause to these later in the future. 3: There is no initial state for god to cause I find this argument to be circular. It tries to prove the universe didn't begin to exist, but that's the very assumption it has. Why couldn't the first state begin to exist? He then objects to the possibility of an infinite, I'll get to this later. I would like to add, even if it's possible the states of the universe are infinite, this doesn't mean they are. It hasn't been proven these states are in fact infinite. 4: There is no need for a singularity. I don't see how this is relevant. I understand Hawking doesn't accept the singularity theorem and I've never argued there must necessarily be a singularity for there to be an initial state. The very quote from Hawking says the universe had a beginning. The Penrose-Hawking theorem did prove there must be a beginning, but it's not believed to be a singularity anymore. 5: An infinite series of events does not make the present moment impossible. Con gives us an analogy with the starting and finishing of lunch. The problem I find is, it's just us humans are breaking down the measurement of time into infinitely small parts. This doesn't mean time itself is infinite. I could break up the measurement between one end of rope to the other end infinitely, but does this mean I have an infinite supply of rope? No, the measurements themselves are human conventions based on physical things, they're not physical things themselves. One can infinitely break up the time measurements of L1(lunch start) and L2 (lunch finish), however this doesn't mean an infinite series of events between L1 and L2 has been crossed. You could measure it to the quark, but there is still a finite series of events. Thanks! Back to Pro Sources ________________________________ [1] http://www.youtube.com... Video [2] http://blogicophilosophicus.wordpress.com... [3] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [4] http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk...