KCA Debate

Ave.The Kalam cosmological argument has many assumptions that are built into it. I want to bring out these assumptions and show that they contradict other parts of the arguments, or that they can be disproven by modern science. If I can do this successfully, then I think there are very good reasons to consider the Kalam a bad argument.The first assumption of the KCA is that there is a first state of time that god causes. This assumption is contradicted by science. The theory of relativity is one of the most proven theories of science, which describes the nature of gravity and time and space existing as one continuum. Over the 20th century, scientists such as Friedmann, Lemaitre, Robertson, and Walker derived equations from relativity that describe our universe as homogenous, isotropic, and expanding or contracting. These metrics also state that every interval of time is 'half open' This means that you can divide any state of time in half.[1]The first hour after the Big Bang can be divided into thirty minutes and thirty minutes. The first nanosecond can be divided into half a nanosecond and half a nanosecond. Half a nanosecond can be divided into 1/2 of 1/2 of a nanosecond, ad infinitum. A first state of time cannot be half-open, because if it were, then it would not be a true first state of time. The theory of relativity shows that a first state of time does not exist. If a first state of time does not exist, then god cannot cause the first state of time. Therefore, there is an attribute of god that cannot be actualized. The KCA depends on the idea of simultaneous causation.[2] Simultaneous causation is the idea that ‘’the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous.’’ [3]The possibility of simultaneous causation allows us to explain the existence of matter without reference to a personal cause. Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time. Using the assumptions of the KCA, it can be demonstrated that there is no need to have a personal cause of matter. Pro says that god is: 'The legitimate owner of everything: what ever exist is directly or indirectly created by Him.' That is an attribute of god that cannot be actualized either.Quentin Smith gave a talk that demolishes the idea of a personal cause.[4]He mentions the development of the Wave Function of the Universe by scientists such as Hawking and Vilenkin. It ‘’implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.’’ The Wave Function also has a large amount of evidence to support it: ‘’This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.’’ The universe came from ‘’a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe.’’ This demonstrates that a personal cause is not needed, but more importantly, it demonstrates that a personal cause is unlikely. As Smith says: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’’There are two points that are made by mentioning the Wavelength Function of the Universe. 1: A personal being is not needed to explain the universe. 2: A personal being would contradict the evidence from physics.The attack on the Kalam is summarized as follows.1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.For these reasons, the Kalam is not true beyond a preponderance of the evidence.Vale.Referenceshttp://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.apologeticspress.org...http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.infidels.org...