The KCA is False

In this debate, I am going to show why the Kalam Cosmological Argument establishes the existence of God, and why my opponent's argument fails. Rebutting My Opponent Pro only makes a few relevant statements here in his opening argument:(i) "If the theory of relativity is true, then there cannot be an initial state of time. " (ii) "There are equations derived from the theory of relativity called the 'Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker' metric. .. .These metrics also state that every finite interval of time is half-open. This means that if you have a finite interval of time, such as an hour, you can divide that state into half an hour and another half an hour. An initial state of time is a finite interval, ergo, it is half-open. But if it is half-open, then it cannot be an initial state, because you can divide it in half. "It is not at all clear how (i) is the case, so I am assuming that my opponent is using (ii) in support for (i). Therefore, my opponent's case rests upon (ii) being true. Quentin Smith essentially sums up the position Pro is endorsing here:"We can characterize the universe as a continuum of successive instantaneous states. This continuum of instantaneous states begins to exist in the sense that there is an earliest half-open interval of each length (a first hour, a first minute, a first second, etc. ). The continuum's beginning to exist is caused in the sense that each instantaneous state that belongs to the continuum is caused by some earlier instantaneous states that also belong to the continuum. " - Quentin Smith[1]Even if I was to grant that the universe would be described as a continuum of instantaneous states in a successive manner, this also holds for a lot of other things as well, but it would be absurd to derive the same result. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the argument my opponent is putting forward. Lets take my opponent's life, it is a continuum of states that follow successively. If we are to stay consistent with Pro's logic, then his life is also half-open in the earlier direction. However, it is obvious that Pro came into being and that his existence had a first state. This means, that the universe could still come into being from non-being with a first state if this argument from Pro is all that is offered. It seems that Pro's argument is rendered absolute. Robin Collins had a good example with regards to a cannonball in his rebuttal against my opponent's argument. If the gun powder goes off at a certain time, my opponent cannot say that the gun powder was the cause because according to his logic; we should never reach a first state for the gun powder to cause the cannonball's release. However, of course, the cannonball's release was caused by the gun powder. "[T]he gunpowder explodes at 12:00pm and the cannonball hits the ground at 12:02pm. Further, consider theopen interval 12:01pm to 12:02pm. Any instantaneous cannonball state in the open interval (12:01pm-12:02pm) is causally explained by the infinite set of prior instantaneous cannonball states plus environmental states within the same open interval. Thus, by PCE the entire aggregate of cannonball states in the open interval (12:01pm-12:02pm) is logically explained without reference to the exploding of the gunpowder, or even the states at or before 12:01pm. Consequently, the exploding gunpowder is not needed to explain any of the cannonball states in the open interval (12:01pm to 12:02pm). .. If such a continuum exists, then it logically follows by the rules of mathematics that the open interval with an infinite number of cannonball states exists. " - Robin Collins[2]Quentin Smith's argument leads to false results that we know are not true. Thus, it can be disregarded. The universe still had a first state. Robin Collins says:"To illustrate one such paradox, consider the universe as consisting of a continuous sequence of instantaneous universe states (IUS), as Smith assumes in his argument. So conceived, between any instantaneous state U(0) and a later state U(1), there will be an intermediate state, U(½), that is halfway between them. In order for U(0) to cause U(1), it must first cause U(½). But, in order for U(0) to cause U(½), it must first cause U(¼), and in order for it to cause U(¼), it must first cause U(U39;), ad infinitum. " - Robin Collins[2]The sequence will never be completed, thus motion would be impossible. However, motion does indeed exist. A first state of the universe is still required. Why The Cause Must Be GodPro concedes the first two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:"My goal is not to show that the casual principle is wrong, or that the universe is eternal or oscillating. I agree with the first two premises of the argument. " - ProSince the conclusion of my opponent's argument is false (and is riddled with logical paradoxes), then there must be a first state by logical deduction. As Pro states:"Modern day theists use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to establish the existence of god, who is defined as the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, probably omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe. " - ProThe external cause of time, must be timeless (time cannot cause the beginning of time itself). The external cause of space, must be spaceless (space cannot the cause the beginning of space itself). The cause has to be beginningless to avoid infinite regress, also only temporal entities come into being (something coming into being must be a tensed fact). As William Lane Craig's states:"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. "[3]The cause has to be immaterial (material cannot cause the beginning of material itself). The cause must be enormously powerful in order to create a universe. Also, the cause must be personal:P1: The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent. P2:The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions. C: Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent. [4]You cannot have just a mechanically operating set of necessary conditions, because this would mean no universe would begin to exist; there would be nothing sufficient to bring it into existence. However, this is would be necessary due to the PSR (Principle Of Sufficient Reason[5]). If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions, the universe would be eternal. This is because an effect is a direct result of its cause, so if the sufficient cause is eternal, then the universe would have to be eternal (William Lane Craig's "Origin of a Temporal Effect from a Timeless Cause" dilemma[6]). The universe is not eternal though. Therefore, the cause is personal. Only a person with free-will could account for a temporal beginning from a timeless cause. At least, this is the most plausible conclusion based on what we know about mechanical causation and person hood. ConclusionMy opponent failed to meet his burden of proof. I showed why there has to be a first state, and why the cause of that first state must be God as defined by my opponent. As it stands, the resolution has been negated. Sources [1] Quentin Smith, "The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused itself to Exist," Philosophy 74 (1999), 583-584. [2] . http://www.infidels.org... [3] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [5] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[6] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;