The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

IntroductionMy opponent's second paragraph about Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the resolution. I believe he is wrong in that regard, just as he is wrong on the KCA. However, since it is not relevant, it can be dismissed. My Arguments The synthetic a priori support for the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the metaphysical principle that something cannot come from nothing, or that out of nothing, nothing comes (ex nihilo nihil fit). However, it seems strange as to how this is really solid support for the first premise. Something can begin to exist from something and still be uncaused. Thus, even if ex nihilo nihil fit is true, the first premise could still be false. Causation as a whole is split up into two parts, or categories philosophically (even Aristotle's four causes can be split up in this way): (i) Necessary Causation (ii) Sufficient Causation As Wes Morriston notes, if something came into being that stood in relation to necessary conditions, but with no sufficient conditions in the equation, then that would be something coming into being without a cause [1]. "How could it be that necessary, but not sufficient, conditions can cause something to come into existence? Causation requires both."[1]This view of causation is even held my many physicists, and indicates that even if ex nihilo nihil fit is true, the first premise is still false. Many scientists use quantum mechanics to show that causation is not fundamental to science:"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville[2]"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist[3]Also, my opponent appeals to the standard Big Bang Model to try and show that the universe began to exist. However, the standard Big Bang model implies the universe had no beginning point. There are three basic principles of mathematics I am going to be appealing to here: 1) n/0 (division by zero) entails a logical contradiction “What's 10 divided by 2? It's 5, because 10 split up evenly into two groups has 5 in each. 10 divided by 1? 10 in 1 group has 10. But 10 in 0 groups? What would that even mean?” [10] 2) Every real number is in between two real numbers[11] 3) There is no first decimal after zero (as I demonstrate below) The singularity at t=0 proposed by The Big Bang theory posits temperature, density, and curvature that entail n/0. Since this is mathematically impossible and leads to contradiction, the singularity at t=0 could not have ontologically existed. If we delete the singularity at t=0, which is logically necessary, then there is no first state of the universe at any time in the past! This is because any state one could assert as the first state is preceded by another necessarily: t=… 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001… If there was a t=0, then one could appeal to Supertasks to claim there was a first state. However, without a t=0, then a first state is impossible. Every real number is in between two real numbers, so any state no matter how far back you go has to be preceded by another state not matter how small. Also, there cannot be any first decimal after 0 as well as I showed above. “Take 0 and 1. Now… take out 0 (t=0) because that’s a singularity; a physically impossible state…There is no first decimal after 0.” –Quentin Persifor Smith. American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan[4] Due to these mathematical laws and the impossibility of a Big bang singularity, a first state of the universe is impossible. The universe did not begin to exist in the sense that there is a first state for any God to cause ex nihilo. Even if the universe has a finite past in years, there would be no actual first state which springs up from either “nothing”, or “something that is not the universe”, as any hypothetical state of the universe is preceded by another state of the universe. This means the universe never really truly begins to exist even under an A-Theory of time, if one accepts modern Cosmology. Note: The argument above does not deny anything that happens after the singularity as far as The Big Bang model is concerned, the arguments just deny the singularity as it is logically incoherent.Also, the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the A-Theory of time being true. Even the Champion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument agrees that if B-Theory is true; the argument is finished:"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig[5].The reason is that temporal becoming is a necessary condition for anything to come into being. If B-Theory is true though, then there is no temporal becoming. We have good scientific grounds for the claim that B-Theory is true, and thus, the universe did not begin to exist. This assumption rests on Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein's theory has been tested time and time again, and has passed flying colors. The most scientifically feasible interpretation of this theory is the Minkowski space-time view[6]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[7]), and it has more explanatory rigor with regards to time dilation and length contraction than other interpretations. This interpretation proves B-Theory but spells death for A-Theory, because A-Theory entails a universal "now" moment. The Minkowski space-time view entails that there is no universal "now" moment, and is the most scientifically sound interpretation. ConclusionPro did not show why we must go with his broader view of causality, and he must address the fact that standard physics accept that virtual particles pop into existence uncaused. Also, I showed that the universe did not begin to exist if we assume the standard Big Bang model, and A-Theory. I also showed that the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails if B-Theory is true; and that B-Theory is probably true. Thus, the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably false. Pro has not met his burden of proof; I went above and beyond mine. The resolution has been negated.Sources [1] http://commonsenseatheism.com...[2] http://atheism.about.com...[3] http://www.infidels.org...[4] http://www.closertotruth.com...[5] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...