The Cause of the Universe is Plausibly Personal if the KCA is True

For those who are unaware the Kalam Cosmolgical Argument (KCA) is as follows. ..1.0. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2.0. The universe began to exist.3.0. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [1]Of course even if the universe has a "cause" this in it's self doesn't prove that the universe has a personal cause. Aperion wants to go one step further and argue that if the universe has a cause then the universe is more plausibly personal than non personal, the question here is what is the justification for this. This has some implications for this debate. .. .1) Pro need not prove that the universe has a cause, but rather IF the universe has a cause then that cause is more plausible to be personal than non personal. 2) I the Con don't have to prove that the IF the universe has a cause then that cause is more plausibly non personal than personal. If Pro is not able to provide a good argument for the plausibility of a personal cause vs a non personal cause then we are left with no reason to think that one type of cause is more plausible than the other and thus Pro has not meet their burden. I ask the reader to keep in mind throughout this debate, even if the universe has a cause, what reason/s have we being given to think that the cause is personal ? Supernatural timeless personal cause vs Supernatural timeless non personal causePro says. .. "The only entities we know of which can possess such properties as timelessness and immateriality are either minds or abstract objects like numbers"The mind vs abstract objects is a false dilemma, In order for Pros argument to get off the ground clearly they have to assume that a supernatural timeless personal cause is at least possible (If they didn't this debate ends very quickly). If Pro can have just the mere possibility of a supernatural timeless personal cause, I as the Con can have just the mere possibility of a supernatural timeless personal cause. Pro says. .. "Con wants to say that the candidate for a transcendent cause is a non personal timeless cause. That is, the transcendent cause of all things we consider natural, is, well, natural"This is a misunderstanding on Pros part. I take it that Pro is talking about a timeless personal supernatural cause. When I ask about how a non personal cause got ruled out, I mean it within that context, that is to say how did a timeless non personal supernatural cause get ruled out ? Pro says. .. "If Con honestly wants to say a natural, non-personal being causes a change of states from one state to another so that time comes into being; "Again same mistake. Collective Properties of the UniversePro brings up some general points about such things as eyes and beauty. Pro then concludes that its more likely the cause is personal. There is no argument here, just the assumption. Even on the surface the assumption of intentionality is questionable as Christopher Hitchens explains. .. "This, there's a certain arrogance to this assumption all of this"all of this extraordinary development was all about us and we were the intended and the desired result and everything else was in the discard. The tremendous wastefulness of it, the tremendous cruelty of it, the tremendous caprice of it, the tremendous tinkering and incompetence of it, never mind at least we're here and we can be people of faith. It doesn't work me, I have to simply say that and I think there may be questions of psychology involved in this as well" [2]Appeal of agent/personal causation in the face of ignoranceIn order for Pro to justify the plausibility of a personal cause of the universe then Pro needs to provide justification for this claim on its own merits. Sam Harris elaborates. .. "Religion was the discourse we had when all causes were opaque, we didn't know the basis of anything. We didn't know why we were here, we didn't know how disease spread or what disease was, we didn't know why people died early and why others flourished, we don't know what is causing thunder storms or why crops fail and we very naturally and as a cognitive and behavioral imperative form descriptions of the world and try to figure out what is going on. [3]There is an important logical point here, ignorance about non personal causation does not equal therefore a personal cause. Yes this logical point also extends to questions about the causation in regards to the universe. To merely ask questions about how can a timeless non personal cause do such and such ? but why does a timeless non personal cause do such and such ? is to just take advantage of ignorance on the matter and hope people conclude its personal agency at work. Consider where Pro asks the question. .. "What's so special about universes that has this natural timeless entity creating it? " I don't know Pro, maybe cause we don't know we should now conclude therefore the cause of the universe is personal ? There is no temporal gap between a timeless cause and it's effectTo ask such questions as how a timeless cause cause can exist without its effect makes no sense, as there is no temporal gap between a timeless cause and its effect as Wes Morriston explains. . "A timeless personal agent timelessly wills to create a world with a beginning, or else does not so will. There can be no temporal gap between the time at which it does the willing and the time at which the thing willed actually happens. In this respect a timeless personal cause is no differentfrom a non-personal cause. To see this, suppose that a timeless and non-personal cause, {s}, is causally sufficient for the existence of a physical universe, alpha, having a temporal duration of thirty billion years. Suppose further that the beginning ofalpha coincides with the beginning of time, so that alpha "comes into being" only in the extratemporal sense. Craig's argument is supposed to show us that this is impossible. If {s} is really eternal*, then alpha cannot have a beginning. Why not? Because no matter when alpha begins, {s} would already have produced it' [4]Unsubstantiated claims about the impossibilities of a timeless non personal cause Pro is admirably explicit in his claim that its impossible for the universe to have a non personal timeless cause as he says. .. "Simply, a timeless non-personal entity can't logically cause from a timeless state"And would Pro like to tell us explicitly the justification for this claim ? and by explicit justification I mean more than just a series of questions. Pro shifts the burdenPro says. .. "Con honestly wants to say a natural, non-personal being causes a change of states from one state to another so that time comes into being; he's got to show us how such a notion can be accomplished without a will. Unless and until he does that, then I think it's more plausible that a transcendent cause of time willed time from a timeless state. Pro tries to shift the burden here, he doesn't get to sit back and claim until his impossibility assertion is proven false he is right by default. The brain & mind connection1) When we encounter minds we observe that they are acommpained by brains2) When the brain changes for example by alcohol or brain injury we observe that the mind changesDoes this evidence suggest that mind is dependent on the brain ? yes. ConclusionAt the core of Pro argument is a claim about the impossibilities of a timeless non personal cause, but its merely asserted by Pro and has not being justified. I look forward to Pros reply. [1] The Blackwell Companion Guide to Natural Theology, edited by William Lane Craig & J. P. Moreland, Page 102. [2] . http://hitchensdebates.blogspot.com.au...[3] www. youtube. com/watch? v=vQgI4bHpAlA[4] . http://www.colorado.edu...