The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

As Mr. Madara has said, the KCA is a syllogism. This means that if it is formally valid and all the premises are true, then the conclusions are unavoidable; if the formal logic is shown to be invalid or any of the premises proved false, then the case falls. I hope to show that he has not succeeded in doing this and, consequently, that the argument stands.Logical validityA rule which applies to a system's parts need not apply to the system as a whole.I agree that it would constitute a fallacy to claim otherwise, but that is not what the syllogism claims. The argument is not based on the premise that "every object in the universe began to exist" but rather that the universe itself as a whole began to exist. The formal logic of the syllogism is what is referred to by logicians (by mood and figure) as an AAA1 syllogism. Given in its skeletal form:All M is PAll S is M∴ All S is PWhich could be graphed out like so: This is formally valid.(1)Premise 1 We have never witnessed anything begin to exist.I sure have. Just this summer I built a shed. The constituent elements may have already been there (the material cause) but the shed was not: before that moment the shed could in no way be said to exist. To understand where Mr. Madara's misunderstanding lies we must keep in mind that Al-Gazali was very familiar with Aristotelian and other Greek philosophy(2). When he speaks of "cause" he knows how to differentiate between the four causes of Aristotle: formal, material, efficient and final. The material cause of the shed (the wood) certainly pre-existed the shed, but it was not the shed; the formal cause (the pattern of the thing) also pre-existed it, but was not this particular shed; the efficient cause (me) was there before the shed was, and I am certainly not very shed like; and finally the final cause (the purpose of storing things) is what led me to undertake its construction, but is likewise not a shed.We have, therefore, seen many things begin to exist. The first law of thermodynamics has no bearing on this fact, although it will be worth going back to the laws of thermodynamics when addressing premise 2, which goes a step further to claim that all of time, space, matter and energy began to exist in the finite past.Premise 2In order to accept this premise, we need some reason to believe the Big Bang model is preferable to eternal, cyclical models.To start with the fact that the Big Bang model is based on observation and answers the available data whereas the cyclical models are mere speculation which add nothing significant to modern cosmology. If anything we would need a good reason to accept these cyclical models, which do not address anything other than certain people's discomfort at the idea of a past-finite universe. In any case the early versions proposed by Soviet scientists were disproved by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose(3). Indeed the former (who cannot be suspected of theistic sympathies) insists that any model which posits an eternal universe is necessarily suspect: "if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics."(4)The Big Bang theory escapes the problems with the Law of Conservation of Energy because "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down". The oscillating models do not have that nifty quality, and still have to face the fact of Entropy. If the universe were past eternal than we would today be in a uniform, old and rather cool universe which looks very little like the ordered, young and in certain spots rather hot one we live in now. Both models therefore seem to run into problems with the laws of thermodynamics, but only the Big Bang theory justifies the exception.Premise 3The Universe could have caused itself before time existed.The argument seems to be not that the existence of the universe is a necessary, not that it existed eternally, but rather that although it did indeed begin to exist it was its own cause. Pro says that the idea that "the universe can't cause itself before it exists" cannot hold when we are speaking of the beginning of the universe, because this includes the beginning of time and so standing prior to the effect in a causal relationship does not necessitate standing prior to the effect in a temporal relationship. I agree. The cause of the universe by definition must be a simultaneous cause insofar as time itself is part of its effect and consequently can have no bearing on it. The problem is, however, that the universe cannot stand in a causal relation to itself because it would need to exist in order to have any relationship to anything. If we posit a thing as its own cause we are speaking in paradox. The problem isn't one of time, but of the very nature of causation. One cannot give what one does not have, if the universe did not exist then it cannot stand in causation to a non-existent universe, because it would have no existence to give. To go back to my shed, in order to be the cause of it the material, formal, efficient and final causes must have existed independently of the shed. If this were not the case they would not have been able to originate the effect. If I took the wood from the shed, for instance, it could not be said that I built the shed, but rather that I dismantled and reassembled it. This becomes even more patently absurd when we posit the universe as the formal, efficient or final cause of itself.The fact of the universe having a cause necessitates an external cause. This cause must be immaterial, as it will cause matter; timeless, as it will cause time; unimaginably powerful, as a cause is always equal to or greater than its effect; and plausibly personal, as the fact that the existence of the universe is not necessary implies choice, which is a function of the mind and therefore a personal attribute. If the cause lacked any of these attributes, it could not possibly stand in a causal relationship with the universe; and if it has all of these attributes, we would be describing a being which fulfills this debate's definition of God.Sources:(1) http://philosophy.lander.edu...(2) http://www.maktabah.org... (3) http://www.hawking.org.uk...(4) http://www.hawking.org.uk...