The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

I. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. There's no reason to believe this. Also, it's self-serving to single out unbegun things as exceptions to this rule. Why not blue things? That would be just as logical. I.A. Something cannot come from nothing I.A.1 Self defeating: If this claim is true, Pro's god can't have made the universe. I.A.2. Pro doesn't get to make up rules about nothing. Maybe nothing has no rules. If so, it has no rule against something coming from nothing. I.B. If something could come into being out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything don’t come into being out of nothing I.B.1. Pro apparently believes that nothing exists now. That's clearly wrong. I.B.1. Pro thinks that if something ever came from nothing, then it must continue doing so, and in ways obvious to him. Nothing cannot continue creating, for instance, pocket universes that Pro is unaware of; no, it must create "lions and tigers and bears … right now" and right here. Again, Pro doesn't make the rules; there's no reason for us to accept his fantasy about nothing. I.C. Common experience confirms and never falsifies premise (1). I.C.1. Common experience does not distinguish between the begun and the unbegun. If the common experience is that things are caused, then Pro shouldn't be positing an uncaused god. I.C.2. Science, on the other hand, does observe virtual particles. The scientific consensus has long been that these are both begun and uncaused. (The Copenhagen interpretation is "the common interpretation of quantum mechanics by physicists since 1927.") [3] Bertrand Russell said something like, "When the experts are agreed, the layman does well not to hold the opposite opinion. When the experts disagree, the layman does well to hold no opinion." Pro opines that all begun things are caused, but this opinion is not supported by scientific consensus. Pro's opinion, then, is a personal whim. II. The universe began to exist. I don't know of any reason to believe this. Experts may say that time began at the big bang, but−−in my experience−−they always add something like, "At least we can call this the beginning, because we don't know what happened before that." (Isaac Asimov. Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time.) So I walked onto campus to get the answer. I found a cosmologist, and asked him whether the big bang was the actual beginning. He was emphatic: "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang! Nobody knows what happened before the big bang! Nobody knows what happened before the big bang!" Therefore, Pro shouldn't be acting like this is a resolved question. We do not know whether the universe began. We have no reason to believe Pro's second premise is true. II.A. The Impossibility of an Actually Infinite Number of Things Pro argues that infinities are impossible, and that therefore we can't have an infinite past, and that therefore we must have begun. II.A.1. Pro wrote, "An actual infinite … is complete," as if he thinks there is a highest number. He may be parroting arguments that he doesn't understand. II.A.2. Pro gives familiar examples of how trans-finite numbers don't behave like finite numbers. It's true, they don't; but that doesn't mean they aren't real. Negative numbers don't behave like positive numbers. Irrational numbers don't behave like rational numbers. Imaginary numbers don't behave like integers. Different numerical systems are useful for representing different aspects of reality. You can't impeach one system by saying it doesn't behave like others. What Pro needs to support his position is a consensus of the experts. II.A.3. But, once again, the experts do not support him. I put this question to three different physicists. Not one of them believed that infinities don't really exist. We have no reason to believe that Pro's claim is true. II.B. The Big Bang Theory II.B.1 Pro writes, "any universe which is on average in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past." That's not relevant. Nobody's claiming there was expansion before the big bang unless there was also contraction. Obviously, you can't get to a singularity by expanding from something smaller. II.B.2. Plagiarism Note: Pro did not use quotes or attribution, but a Google search shows this exact phrasing at "Cosmological Arguments - Science" at www.allaboutscience/cosmological-arguments.htm. (I didn't click through to the site because WOT (Web of Trust) says it has a poor reputation.) Further research shows that the quote really comes from William Lane Craig (poor reputation of a different kind) and that Craig was also misrepresenting. Where Vilenkin referred to "'almost all' inflationary models," Craig goes with the cockier, "any universe." [1] II.B.3. Pro quotes Vilenkin sounding very tough, claiming in effect that all reasonable have to agree with him. "There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Does Pro mean to suggest that I am stubbornly ignorant? I don't know, but one web site shows Vilenkin himself waffling on this point: "I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…." [1] III Therefore, the universe has a cause. I argue against this conclusion when I think someone is equivocating the meaning of "universe." Pro isn't equivocating, so I grant that, up to this point−−and although there is no reason to accept his premises−−the form of Pro's argument valid. IV If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. Plagiarism Note: The above was neither in quotes nor attributed. It is from WLC's Reasonable Faith website.[2] At this point, if I was voting, I would do a full forfeit: all seven points awarded to Con. Now, to the merits of WLC's argument: It is just word salad. If something doesn't exist in space or time, then it doesn't exist. This is just Pro (or WLC) making things up again. Pro does not get to regulate WLC's fantasy realm. IV.A. There are only two things which could be spaceless and timeless: abstract objects, such as a number, or unembodied minds. We've never investigated spaceless places or timeless times. If we chose to fantasize about such realms, why not add non-dimensional unicorns? Pro argued against infinities on the grounds that he doesn't understand them. Well, I don't understand unembodied minds. The idea is ludicrous. Timeless unchanging things can't have thoughts. They cannot be minds. IV.B abstract objects can’t cause anything, let alone the universe. That’s part of what it means to be an abstract object. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be an unembodied Mind. Unembodied minds can't cause anything. That's part of what it means to be unembodied. And it follows from being timeless and unchanging. You can't do anything. Clearly, Craig is just choosing among absurdities, and his choices reflect only which result he desires. He wants a god, therefore there must be a god. He wants his god to be intellectually justified, therefore any mishmash of words must count as a sound argument. Conclusion: - While Pro's first two premises are conceivably true, he gave us no legitimate reason to believe them. None of his supporting arguments withstood scrutiny. - His later premises are patently absurd and not rationally supported. - His form was valid as far as the first conclusion. After that, not. - He relied heavily on plagiarism. The resolution fails. Vote Con. === [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [3] Wikipedia: "Quantum Mechanics" http://en.wikipedia.org...