The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

He is correct, The premise I wish to undermine is the first. __Something cannot come from nothing, If it could, Then it is inexplicable why anything and everything does not come into being from nothing__ First off, What does it mean for something to come from nothing? The scenario is usually worded as if we should treat "nothing" as some sort of starting point. As if at first, Nothing exists, And "then" the universe just pops into being for no reason. As philosopher William Lane Craig, The most popular advocate of the KCA notes: "If prior to the existence of the universe, There was absolutely nothing - no God, No space, No time - how could the universe possibly come to exist? " - William Lane Craig [1] I share the intuition that if there exists absolutely nothing, Then a universe just popping into existence is absurd. The question I want to ask is, Why assume there was ever nothing? The absurd Atheistic scenario Dr. Craig outlines assumes: (a) At first, Nothing exists, And the universe pops into existence The problem is there is no reason why someone denying a cause of the beginning of the universe is committed to (a). One can just assume: (b) At first, The initial universal state existed 13. 8 billion years ago and expanded Notice how "nothing" is excluded from (b)? This avoids the absurdity that Dr. Craig outlines. He says "if prior to the universe, There was absolutely nothing. . . ". But it could be that there is no "prior" to the universe at all (we know at least that there cannot be a "temporally prior" to the first moment of time). In conclusion I grant that if there was absolutely nothing, Then nothing would "remain" (something will not just pop into existence). Basically, I agree that if at first, Nothing exists, Something cannot just pop into existence. However, I disagree with the notion that the Atheist is committed to (a). Instead of "at first, Nothing exists", I can just posit that "at first, The universe exists (13. 8 billion years ago) and expanded. As Cosmologist Sean Carroll notes: "The phrase "popping into existence" is not the right one to use when you are talking about the universe. . . The correct thing to say is that there was a first moment of time. When you say it that way it does not sound so implausible. " - Sean Carroll [2] So, One can deny 1, But also agree that something cannot come from nothing in the way Dr. Craig describes. So this principle of ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, Nothing comes) is irrelevant when it comes to showing P1 of the KCA to be true. __Common experience and scientific evidence confirm P1__ The problem with this argument is that there are a lot of principles one could come up with which would support an argument that God does not exist. Philosopher Wes Morriston points out these [3] 1) Material things come from material things 2) Nothing is created out of nothing 3) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time 4) The mental lives of all persons have temporal duration 5) All persons are embodied All 5 principles are "confirmed" by common experience and science backs them up but of course, They all contradict Theism and creatio ex nihilo. The advocate of the KCA should not use empirical generalizations as good guides in the manner they want to, Because there are a lot more generalizations one can make which contradict Theism. Just because somethings have no known examples against them doesn"t mean they are true. We have no example of timeless disembodied minds, That does not mean one does not exist, Right? This logic could actually be used as an argument for Atheism. Therefore, The KCA advocate ought to abandon this logic. __In Conclusion __ Denying the first premise does not commit one to the notion that something can just pop into being from some prior nothingness. Therefore, Mentioning that "something cannot come from nothing" is irrelevant, As I could agree but still have no new reason to accept P1 based off that. Also, We can come up with principles that are confirmed by common experience/ scientific observation that entail Theism and creatio ex nihilo is false. Clearly this is not a route a KCA advocate wants to take. We are left with no good reasons from my opponent for anyone to accept P1 of the KCA. __Sources__ [1] Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 93 [2] . https://www. Reasonablefaith. Org/media/debates/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmol/ [3] . http://spot. Colorado. Edu/~morristo/NewKalamCritique. Pdf