The KCA is False

Ave.I have two contentions in regards to a personal cause of the universe. 1) The KCA demonstrates that there is no need for a personal cause of matter. 2) A personal cause of the universe is unnecessary given the evidence from physics.1: The KCA depends on the idea of simultaneous causation [1]. Simultaneous causation is the idea that ‘’the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous.’’ [2]This is another instance of the KCA causing its own demise. The possibility of simultaneous causation allows us to explain the existence of matter without reference to a personal cause. Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time. Using the assumptions of the KCA, it can be demonstrated that there is no need to have a personal cause of matter.2: Quentin Smith gave a talk that demolishes the idea of a personal cause.[3] He mentions the development of the Wave Function of the Universe by scientists such as Hawking and Vilenkin. It ‘’implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.’’ The Wave Function also has a large amount of evidence to support it: ‘’This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.’’ The universe came from ‘’a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe.’’ This demonstrates that a personal cause is not needed, but more importantly, it demonstrates that a personal cause is unlikely. As Smith says: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’’Let’s return to my argument from the theory of relativity. The KCA depends on there being a series of instantaneous states that eventually exhaust, requiring a first state of time that must be caused by something outside of time. Any attack on viewing the universe as a series of instantaneous states actually makes the KCA less plausible. So please, Pro, continue with these criticisms!I think it's important to put Collins' paper into context. The cannonball analogy was an attack on Smith's Principle of Causal Explanation (PCE), which states that 'Once the existence of each of the parts is causally explained, the existence of the whole [or aggregate] is logically explained, since it is a logical consequence of the existence of the parts of the whole that the whole [or aggregate of parts] exists.' I'm not sure what part of my argument from relativity assumes the PCE, but in case I missed something, I'll quote from Smith. He argues that the PCE is better stated as 'Once the existence of each of the parts (states) of the universe has a historically complete explanation in terms of (earlier) parts of the universe, the existence of the universe is completely explained, since the existence of the universe is a logical consequence of the existence of its parts.' From this correction, Smith is able to say that 'Since the flight of the cannonball does not have a historically complete explanation in terms of earlier parts of that flight, no sound parallel argument can be constructed for the conclusion that the flight of the cannonball is completely explained by its parts and their causal relations.' The cannonball analogy is an argument against the PCE, which I never assumed, so it's irrelevant anyways. But if Pro would like an answer, that's it.Collins also gives an argument that is a version of Zeno's paradox. I can't respond to it, because in order to read it, I had to read half of it. In order to read half of it, I had to read a quarter of it. In order to read a quarter of it, I had to read half a quarter of it. Eventually, I got tired and went to bed.But seriously, paradoxes like this are solved by supertasks. Supertasks entail dividing finite intervals of time into smaller states of time. I will present the most common way of solving Zeno's paradox through the use of supertasks: The successive distances covered by Achilles as he progressively reaches the mid points of the spans he has left to go through form an infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … whose sum is 1. Consequently, Achilles will indeed reach point B (x = 1) at t* = 1 P.M. (which is to be expected if he travels with velocity v = 1 km/h, as has been assumed). Then there is no problem whatsoever in splitting up his run into smaller sub-runs and, so, no inherent problem about the notion of supertask. I won't answer Pro's other argument about my life having a first state, because it's essentially the same argument as this one.Let's summarize what the case against the Kalam is so far. The theory of relativity proves the Big Bang, and the theist uses the Big Bang to support the second premise of the KCA. Thefore, the KCA assumes that relativity is true. However, this causes the demise of the argument, because equations derived from relativity show that there cannot be a first state of time. Pro doesn't doubt the science of this, but only the implications of its truth.The KCA also assumes that simultaneous causation is possible. As I demonstrated in the first part of my round, if simultaneous causation is possible, then atoms can come into existence without a personal cause. This means that matter can be explained without a personal being, but the theist asserts it can't be. Another case of the KCA's assumptions causing its own demise.The Wave Function of the Universe demonstrates that a universe like ours is highly probable to occur through natural law. It also shows that an omnipotent being couldn't have caused the universe. It is confirmed by a large body of empirical evidence. Another reason to think there was no personal cause.Pro objects to the PCE, but it's unclear as to how the PCE is part of my argument. Pro also tries to use problems with infinites to take down my argument. These problems are easily solved by supetasks. They're also wrong by consequence, because if infinites are impossible, then relativity and FLRK metrics have to be wrong. That's a tough bullet to bite.For these reasons, the resolution is affirmed.References1: http://www.apologeticspress.org...2: http://plato.stanford.edu...3: http://www.infidels.org...Vale.