The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Preliminary Clarifications I would like to clarify what I mean by "begins to exist." The following quote should do the job, where t ranges over any non-zero period of time and x ranges over any finite entity: A. x begins to exist at t if x comes into being at t. B. x comes into being at t if (i) x exists at t, and the actual world includes no state of affairs in which x exists timelessly, (ii) t is either the first time at which x exists or is separated from any t′< t at which x existed by an interval during which x does not exist, and (iii) x’s existing at t is a tensed fact. [1] On this understanding, the universe needn’t have a first instant of its existence in order for it to begin to exist. It only needs a first moment (a non-zero period of time) of its existence. It also doesn’t matter whether there was a time at which the universe did not exist. Even if there was no such time, the universe begins to exist so long as it is past-metrically finite and essentially temporal. (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause Let’s review the three lines of evidence I offered for the truth of premise (1): 1. Something cannot come from nothing I really don’t know how to respond to Wiploc here, because his remarks are so confused. Defining what I mean by the word “nothing” in various contexts is in no sense trivial. I have no idea what he means. Further, I don't think God created the universe out of Himself, though Wiploc seems to think I do. Rather, I think God created the universe ex nihilo, not out of preexistent materials of any sort. My opponent has now put himself in the awkward position of having to show that God created the universe out of Himself, something I know he cannot do. 2. If something could come into being without a cause, it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything do not come into being without a cause. I’ll respond directly to Wiploc’s objections: First, God is not inexplicable. I hold that He is metaphysically necessary, which means that He exists by a necessity of His own nature. Of course, the kalam cosmological argument does not prove this attribute of God; it merely proves what’s called His factual necessity. But even if there was no explanation for why God exists, it doesn’t follow that the universe therefore can exist inexplicably. Why? Because the universe began to exist, and therefore requires a cause. God, on the other hand, never began to exist. Second, I never claimed infinite regresses were inexplicable, but rather that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. The same cannot be said for a beginningless, uncaused cause. I’ve already responded to the claim that an uncaused cause is inexplicable. Third, I’m not “requiring” that lions and tigers and bears must come into being without a cause, but rather that there is no explanation as to why they do not do so. Common experience confirms and never falsifies premise (1) My opponent has not criticized this line of evidence, so it stands. As for Wiploc’s stronger causal premise: (‘1) Whatever exists has a cause First, I pointed out that a beginningless entity cannot have a cause, because it never came into being and therefore cannot be brought into being (that is, have a cause). Indeed, the implicit assumption of this premise is that there are no beginningless entities. But if this is the case, you could consider the entire KCA as an argument against premise (‘1), because it lands us with the existence of a beginningless entity. Second, the cause of the universe cannot be a Big Mac, because a Big Mac is a physical thing and the cause of the universe must be non-physical and immaterial. It cannot be the Big Bang, for the Big Bang is simply the event at which the universe began to exist. The “Big Bang” had a beginning, and therefore requires a cause. Third, on the above definition of “begins to exist”, God does not begin to exist because He is timeless sans (without) the universe, and one of the requirements of something beginning to exist is that there is no state of affairs in the actual world where that thing is timeless. As for virtual particles, Wiploc didn’t really respond to my claim that the quantum vacuum is the efficient cause of these particles. The quantum vacuum might be a material entity, but it can still function as an efficient cause. Yes, the vacuum is an indeterminate cause, but a cause nonetheless. (2) The universe began to exist I offered two reasons to think the universe began to exist: 1. The impossibility of an actually infinite number of things First, we’ve seen that God does not begin to exist even if there cannot be an actually infinite number of things. He exists timelessly without the universe, and therefore does not endure through an infinite number of events. Second, imaginary numbers are a prime example of how a mathematical concept can be a useful mathematical device but which has no physical counterpart. Imaginary numbers are the multiples of the square root of -1. Unless my opponent thinks there’s some physical entity which can somehow be described by imaginary numbers, his remarks are irrelevant. Third, I think zero is a troublesome idea, actually! When we say that that there are no elephants in the room, we do not mean that there are elephants in the room, and the number of them is zero. Rather we just mean there are no elephants in the room. Indeed, the reason infinity and zero can work as mathematical objects is that you're simply restricted from dividing and subtracting by them. Fourth, I don’t understand Wiploc’s comments here about “sizable gaps between locations.” He might be referencing Zeno’s paradoxes, but I’ve got no idea. He needs to articulate himself more clearly if I’m to respond to his arguments. Now I didn’t say “physicists don’t understand math”, but rather that they, as scientists, are not in a position to judge the worth of a philosophical argument. My quotes from Vilenkin were never to validate a philosophical argument, but rather to validate a scientific argument, where his opinion has weight. As for existing outside of space and time, I just don’t have a problem with this idea. Indeed, if the KCA is sound, we must accept such a mode of existence. Indeed, immaterial, atemporal existence is just a different mode of existence from material, temporal existence. Claiming that because the former is not like the latter, it therefore cannot be real is not an argument in any way. I don't know of any contemporary philosopher who thinks "exists" means "to be in space and time." 2. The Big Bang Theory My opponent has dropped his objections to my second line of evidence for premise (2). On the standard Big Bang model, the universe originates out of nothing and expands to the present state of the universe. Even though we do not yet have a quantum theory of gravity, the BGV theorem still requires the unvierse begin to exist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can’t help but smile that Wiploc continues to charge me of plagiarism. I’m sure that most of our readers are smart enough not to be duped by this debater’s trick. I pointed out that if he is to consistently accuse me of plagiarism, he has to say that I'm plagiarizing when I say “(2) the universe began to exist” or “(2.1) an actually infinite number of things cannot exist”, which is just absurd. Nevertheless, I cited my source for premise (4) in the thrid round, so I don't now why he continues to press this charge. Conclusion My opponent has neither raised any good objections to the multiple lines of evidence I offered for each premise, nor has he raised good objections to any premise itself. Therefore, the arguments I offered stand, and I conclude that each premise of the KCA is more plausibly true than false. Therefore, the kalam cosmological argument has been shown to be sound. Notes [1] Craig, W. L. “J. Howard Sobel on the Kalam Cosmological Argument.” Reasonable Faith. Website. (21 July 2013).