The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I have addressed that virtual particles do indeed pop into (and out of) existence all the time – with measurable effect - so on this subject my opponent is misinformed. Trust me, this is far from me being misinformed. The whole “virtual particles” thing is often used by naturalists and opponents of the kalam argument. They appeal to quantum physics, and which, depending on the interpretation, would suggest that virtual particles pop in and out of existence in the quantum vacuum. But there are over 10 different interpretations of quantum physics (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and no one knows which one is correct. Some interpretations are deterministic, and some are indeterministic, and no one knows which is true. The vacuum itself is not “nothing”, in the sense of “non-being”, it is a sea of fluctuating energy and is described by natural law. However, I will grant that we have no evidence for anything else just popping into existence (such as horses) within our universe. My opponent will have to answer the question of what is so special about quantum mechanics that will allow only particles to pop in to being, uncaused out of nothing as opposed to anything else such as horses. The state or condition of “nothingness” doesn’t have any pre-causal conditions that will only allow for ONLY particles to pop in to being and nothing else. So why just particles? And agreement suggests my opponent does not believe in the biblical Genesis account of creation where the heaven and everything on earth, just popped into existence within our universe any more than I do. Otherwise, my opponent would believe that a horse (or perhaps a creeping thing) could just pop right into existence beside him. Actually, I do agree that those things (as mentioned above) popped in to being. But I don’t believe that they popped in to being, uncaused out of nothing. As Dr. Craig puts it “When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least we can conclude that the magician caused the rabbit to appear, which is vastly different than the notion of the rabbit just popping into existence uncaused out of nothing..no magician, no nothing”. I can accept my opponent’s general definition of the universe with the caveat that it defines only the observable universe we can identify at present. From earth, we can see about 46 billion light years in any direction, but due to the speed of light, we are limited from seeing farther. So my opponent admits that we have limitations on what we can observe, which would make the multiverse scenario that he appealed to previously quite irrelevant. If we are only limited to what we can see in our observable universe, then any postulation of external cosmologies are pointless. The assumption that the universe may have begun with an actual singularity is probably inaccurate. Physicist Stephen Hawking helped originate the idea, but later recanted.What my opponent is referring to is the Hartle-Hawing quantum gravity model which attempts to eliminate the singularity by introducing “imaginary time”. I’d like for my opponent to explain to me what is the physical interpretation of imaginary time, like two “imaginary” minutes? Hawking admits “Only if we could picture the universe in imaginary time would there be no singularities….when one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularites”. (Hawking, Brief History of time, 138-39) And even on this proposal, the universe begins to exist, just not at a singularity point. A singularity is not a NECESSARY requirement for a finite universe. My opponent mentioned an “inflationary” universe, which makes a good time for me to point out that American physicist Alan Guth, “Father of Inflation”, got together with two other physicists, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin and formulated a theorem, called the BGV theorem, which “proved” that any universe that has been expanding on with an average expansion rate of 0 must have had a beginning.I would like to repeat to my opponent that singularites are not a requirement for a finite universe. Again, even on the Hartle-Hawking model, the universe begins to exist, just not at a singularity point. But a beginning is a beginning. My opponent fails to distinguish between the two types of infinity which philosophers recognize (actual infinity and potential infinities). My argument is against an actual infinity, not a potential infinity, which my opponent is alluding to with his “dividing by 0” piece. I’d like my opponent to explain to me how he can on one hand say admit that we are limited from our vantage point in the cosmos as to what we can observe, and then on the other hand postulate a multiverse which exists beyond our universe? My opponent must be a fan of Stephen Hawking, as Hawking proposed such a “baby universe” model, and even engaged in a friendly bet with a colleague of his (James Preskill) regarding the viability of such a model. Hawking has sense lost the bet, and admitted to losing the bet and even apologizing to his fans for “false hopes”. (Google it). I am speaking of cause/effect relations. If our universe is one product of an infinite number of events which LEAD to its origins, then I’d like my opponent to explain to me how our universe could have ever originated. So for our universe to even begin, infinity had to have been traversed, but if counted every single event which lead to our universe, where would you stop? If there is no way you can stop as you go back in time, there is no way you can stop if you move forward in time, therefore our universe would have never began. The difference between a God that has always existed, and a universe that has always existed is that if a universe is infinite, it is infinite in TIME. If God is infinite, God was timeless (atemporal) before creation. And this is not begging the question in favor of God, but postulating “timelessness” as a plausible explanation because it is in fact a necessary condition. God did not create the universe sooner (or later) because it was his eternal will to create the universe at the exact moment at which he did. My opponent is falsely assuming that there was a point at which God didn’t know that he was going to create, and then suddenly “decided” to create. God had an eternal will to create the universe, so he never began to “decide”. He always knew. I’d like my opponent to explain how “nothing” can be categorized as “quantum”. Distinguishing between actual infinity and potential infinity would be helpful here. It is good that my opponent notes that oscillating models have come, and gone. What my opponent fails to realize is that theists don’t use “infinity” in a quantitative sense in reference to God, we use it in a qualitative sense, meaning that God, being the Supreme Being, is the absolute greatest conceivable being…infinite. My opponent is appealing to infinite regression. He is willing to accept that our universe may be the product of an infinite chain of cause/effect relations extending all the way to infinite past, but what is hasn’t done yet is answer the question of how a universe could begin to exist if an infinite number of events preceded it. So my opponent is falsely concluding that an infinite set of events have been traversed, but infinitely cannot be traversed by successive addition. My opponent has just given rise to the notion that the universe could have existed outside of time, which seems absurd, because it leaves the question of how can a universe that is in constant change ever be considered outside of time, when change implies time?? I’d like to point out to my opponent that the word “eternity” could mean atemporal(timeless), according to Stanford Encyclopedia http://plato.stanford.edu... You cannot have a “temporal” before, but you can have a “causal” before. A man that has been sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity suddenly begins to stand. There was no time “before” he began to move, but the man existed causally “before” time. According to modern dates of the universe..how universe is an estimated 13.7 billion years old. I’d like my opponent to explain why our universe would begin only 13.7 billion years ago, if the conditions that would make our universe originate were there from eternity past? My opponent seems to think that being omnipotent means that one can violate logic and reasoning, such as existing and not existing at the same time. This is clearly not the case. My opponent accuses me of using God of the Gaps reasoning (using God as a plug-in for lack of knowledge), but in the same sentence appeals to science with the hopes that science will one day find an answer to these problems. Is that “Science of the Gaps”? Again, my opponent is relying on the concept of an actual infinity (“eternal”, “always”) outside of our universe’s time, claiming elsewhere actual infinities cannot exist. My opponent continues to make it seem as if theists claim that God has existed eternally in time, which is not the case, nor the argument. Looks like my opponent is moving the goal posts to me. Even if the bible would have said everything that he wants it to say, well, it doesn’t mention the cosmic background radiation of the big bang, does it? My opponent could then say, “Well, it doesn’t mention CBR, so it can’t be true!!” The bible is obviously not a science book. My question is simply what reasons would shepard’s living 3,000 years ago have to believe that the universe began to exist? Lucky guess? My opponent then critiques the Bibles account of creation regarding the sequence order, as he or anyone alive today can conclusively determine how old the earth is compared to the sun. If you aren’t willing to give your life for the truth value of something, then you aren’t too sure, now are you?