The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Clearing Up Some ConfusionI think Pro is confused. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument trying to show that God exists. So, yes, Pro does have to show God exists to win this debate. Pro has to show that all 5 premises of the argument are true. My opponent just misses the entire point of this debate. If I can explain the universe without appealing to God, then the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails. This is because if the Kalam Cosmological argument succeeded, then the existence of God would be logically deduced; God would be the only explanation of the universe. Thus, the very fact that my explanation has not be shown false, proves that this debate has already been won in my favor.Pro's Energy Argument "My argument was that the universe is essentially an ocean of energy, made up of elementary particles. These minuscule particles that behave like both waves and particles, and move in an inherently random manner, have somehow come to form the universe as we know it. This is, by the way, what I mean when I say 'come into being' or 'beginning to exist'."This is an incoherent view of "beginning to exist" though. Thus, it can be dismissed. The particles cannot form, or create the universe as the particles (even in a superposition state) are part of the universe. Self-evidently, a part of the universe cannot "form" or "create" the universe. Nothing my opponent said can be reasonably interpreted as philosophically sound explanation of "begins to exist".Pro then goes on to say that God is the cause according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Obviously, I know this, as I am the one that provided the argument to be debated over here in the first place. Pro has to show that God caused the beginning of the existence of the universe. Pro hasn't even tried to meet his burden of proof. Coming Into Being/ Finite PastMy opponent says that no matter who you slice it, a finite past means a coming into being. This is obviously false. There is self-evidently no logical or metaphysical link requiring that something with a finite past, comes into being necessarily. I proved this in my last round by showing a clear different between a universe that just has a finite past and came into being, and a universe that just has a finite past: This diagram proves that a universe that just as a finite past is conceivable, without the universe having to come into being (like on the top diagram). Therefore, Pro's claim that a finite past necessitates a coming into being is not true. If the universe has just has a finite past, then it doesn't "come from" at all. Thus, the problem of the universe "coming from nothing" is avoided. All we know is that the universe has a finite past, that does not mean that it came into being. Cause and Effect. Time and Space.I agree that if the universe began to exist, it had to have a cause. However, there is no reason why this cause has to be God. Pro still has not met his burden. Also, Pro says something utterly outrageous:"The KCA says nothing about time, it only says that whatever begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist. Don't get caught up trying to figure out how time fits into the whole picture."The nature of time has everything to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument (well, not everything, but it plays a huge role). William Lane Craig even admits that the entire Kalam Cosmological Arguments rests on the A-Theory of time:"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[1]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:“[T]he theory of relativity conceives of events as simply being and sustained relations of earlier and later, but not as 'coming into being'” - Adolph GrunbaumWe have good scientific grounds for the claim that B-Theory is true, and thus, the claim that the universe did not begin to exist. This 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[2]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[3]), 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 that the past, and future exist (which is exactly what B-Theory posits). Minkowsian space-time is the most scientifically sound interpretation of Special Relativity.In sum, we actually have good philosophical and scientific grounds to support the claim that the universe did not begin to exist. This is because, as William Lane Craig notes, even if the universe has a finite past, the universe doesn't begin to exist if B-Theory is true (as I have argued, this is even possibly true for A-Theory, but it is metaphysically necessary as far as B-Theory is concerned). I have argued that Special Relativity demonstrates B-Theory. Thus, Pro has no escape; even with a finite past, that doesn't mean the universe came into being. Many philosophers agree that Special Relativity proves B-Theory:"As it turns out, it is actually impossible to find any objective and universally acceptable definition of 'all of space, taken at this instant.' This follows … from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The idea of the block universe is, thus, more than an attractive metaphysical theory. It is a well-established scientific fact." - Rudy Rucker[4]"Special relativity [by itself] appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view." -Vesslin PetkovVilenkin's ModalPro has not shown that Vilenkin's modal of cosmic origins is false, thus he has not shown P4 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be true. Under this model, the universe is "caused" by a zero energy state describable by the laws of physics which allow space, time, and energy to spontaneously be created; no God needed. This model abides by all the laws of physics. This mean, P4 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is refuted. P4 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is:"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."However, Alexander Vilenkin's modal proves that the universe can be explained without God. This means that P4 is either false, or extremely unlikely based on the support given for it. Pro has to show that the universe cannot be explained without God.ConclusionPro completely dodged most of my arguments in a hand-waving fashion. Even if the universe has a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being (this is true "anyway you slice it"). Pro also claims that time has nothing to do with the KCA, when the entire argument depends on A-Theory being true. I showed (by using Special Relativity), that the B-Theory of time is probably true. Ergo, the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably false. My opponent hasn't come anywhere near close to meeting his burden of proof. Sources[1] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[4] The Fourth Dimension, p. 149.