The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Allow me to begin with a bit of humility. I acknowledge that I am not a physicist (although, by their own admission, neither is my opponent). I also acknowledge that Con probably has a more advanced understanding of mathematics than I do. However, this does not limit my ability to argue on this subject. If only physicists and mathematicians are capable of understanding cosmology, then education would be impossible, because no one starts off as a physicist or mathematician! Indeed, why would prominent scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and Neil deGrasse Tyson waste so much time publishing their findings in mainstream books if it is impossible for an educated public to grasp such topics? As such, perhaps the limitations Con feels are due to an inability to form cogent and concise arguments rather than my “lack of understanding.” It’s not a valid argument to, in essence, say “I don’t have time to discuss it, but trust me, I’m right…” As impressive as my opponent’s seeming command of QP math is, I believe Con is missing the forest for the trees (or, at least, for the math…). This evidence fails to prove that something can come from nothing, and multiple authorities in the cosmology field agree with that assessment, as I shall detail below. == Response == Con’s final rebuttal focuses exclusively on the term “cosmological” in the argument’s title and explaining CP symmetry violation. In doing so, Con has dropped all attacks against premise 2 and the conclusion, as well as my argument that nothingness cannot have creative properties (because properties = something). Con has also failed to respond to my claim, supported by Stephen Hawking, that the universe did indeed have a beginning (Premise 2). Therefore, I will tailor my response solely to the two former topics. "Cosmological"/deductive argument: Con presses their belief that both a debate resolution’s argument and individual premises must be deductive. Con writes: “The resolutions upheld in debate after debate point out that the PREMISE must be deduced from shared observation in addition to the argument” (emphasis theirs). This is multiply confused. There is no rule anywhere that says each premise within a deductive argument must itself be deduced. Once again, a deductive argument is simply a conclusion that follows necessarily from a set of premises (http://www.iep.utm.edu...). Although ridiculous, the following argument is still deductive: “all celestial bodies are made of cheese. The moon is a celestial body. Therefore, the moon is made of cheese.” To dismantle this argument, Con would simply need to show that one or both premises are false. But declaring the argument is not deductive is wrongheaded. If Con still objects to the use of the term “cosmological,” then I will agree to remove it – let us now refer to it as the “Kalam Argument.” But since the premises and conclusion are exactly the same, removing this term does nothing to help Con’s argument. The argument’s content remains untouched by this objection. Con spends the rest of their time attacking Premise 1, claiming to have presented evidence that proves non-causative action, so let’s proceed to that. CP Symmetry Violation (CPSV): Con accuses me of an oversimplified and misleading explanation of CPSV. Obviously, my very short summary was intended to be simplified, but if it was misleading or “dead wrong” then Con should take it up with Oxford University Particle Physicist Christine Sutton, who defined CP Violation for the Encyclopedia Britannica as “violation of the combined conservation laws associated with charge conjugation (C) and parity (P) by the weak force, which is responsible for reactions such as the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei . . . Experiments conducted the following year demonstrated conclusively that parity was not conserved in particle decays, including nuclear beta decay, that occur via the weak force. . .” And continues “it can be demonstrated that the observed imbalance or asymmetry in the matter-antimatter ratio may have been produced by the occurrence of CP violation in the first seconds after the big bang.” (http://www.britannica.com...). Given this passage, I believe my summary of CPSV in the previous round is a fair representation. After this, Con launches into a long explanation of how CPSV indicates that energy can produce matter viz. quantum fluctuation models. At the end, Con rightly concludes, “this proves matter can spontaneously form from energy.” I agree completely with those findings. They only serve to confirm the Kalam Argument. Remember that Con is trying to show that something can come from nothing (refuting P1: everything that begins has a cause). To prove this, Con has concluded that matter can be produced from….. energy? But energy is not “nothing.” Quantum vacuum fluctuations are not “nothing.” I have already noted this – when cosmologists say “nothing caused the universe” they don’t really mean “nothing” as in literally no thing. They mean vacuum energy, or the laws of physics, or a multiverse, or other such concepts. In fact, even the notable cosmologist Dr. Lawrence Krauss, in his famous lecture “A Universe from Nothing,” admits: “Nothing isn’t nothing anymore . . . nothing is really a boiling, bubbling, brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a time scale so short you can’t see them.” (). As another example, I will re-emphasize my previous quote from cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin who clarifies that by “nothing” he means the laws of physics, which begs the “uncomfortable” question of where the laws of physics came from (a very uncomfortable question indeed). Con even confirms this in their own argument. The best my opponent can do is conclude that energy from a fluctuating vacuum can create matter [the universe]. Con then dismisses any further inquiry with a hand wave by declaring it’s impossible to know where energy came from. But that’s the key issue right there! Con has failed to show how nothing – truly nothing – can create something. They simply show how energy can create something, and admit their inability to proceed further. In light of all this evidence, therefore, we are forced to conclude that we have exactly zero observable, deductive evidence to show that nothing can create something. == Conclusion == By focusing exclusively on the issue of “deduction” and Premise 1, Con dropped all attacks on Premise 2 and Conclusion. Therefore, Con has assumed the universe began to exist, and that the universe had a cause. The only remaining way for Con to render the Kalam unsound is to show Premise 1 as untrue. So, as an exercise, let me concede to Con’s evidence: Energy from a quantum vacuum fluctuation created the universe. Fine. Does this dismantle Premise 1? Not even close. Quite the opposite – it confirms it. Con’s own evidence suggests that energy caused the universe’s beginning. If true, a causal energy also fits the description as a cause transcendent of space/time. Both premises and conclusion remain intact. The challenge from Round 1 was for Con to expose the Kalam Argument as unsound in either form, premise, or conclusion. As such, the Burden of Proof rested on Con to make such a demonstration, and they failed to meet it. Therefore: The Kalam Argument stands. Thanks to Con for a fun debate. I really enjoyed the challenge and welcome further debates with you any time. Win, lose, or draw - well done!