The KCA is False

Ave.The argument I will be giving is loosely based on a paper by Quentin Smith that my opponent is aware of. [1] I want to point out that I am only basing my argument on Smith. I am only going to be using a single point he made in that paper, and I am not necessarily endorsing the rest of his cosmological viewpoint. RationalThinker is critical of Smith's argument for a self-caused universe because he disagrees with Smith's interpretation of relativity and quantum mechanics. I don't think that matters in the context of this debate, because if there is no absolute simultaneity, and there is no Bohmian interpretation, then there cannot be a cosmological argument for the existence of god. I'm also not going to argue that the universe was-self caused.The KCA assumes that there is some state of time that is not preceded by any other state of time. We will call this the initial state of time, which is state of time that is not preceded by any other state of time. On a theistic view, all of matter, space, and energy came into existence in this initial state of time. The theist asserts that everything which begins to exist has a cause, so the beginning of all of these things requires a cause. For reasons that Pro will elucidate in the next round, this cause must be god.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. My only goal is to show that the initial state of time cannot exist, so god cannot have caused it. If god cannot have caused it, then he cannot exist, because god is defined by the KCA as the cause of the initial state of time.Theists such as William Lane Craig appeal to the Big Bang in order to show that the universe had a beginning. [2] I don't disagree with this, and I too think that the universe had a beginning. It's significant because the theory of relativity proves that we don't live in a static universe, a discovery which helped the Big Bang theory get developed. One of the major proofs of the Big Bang is that the universe can't be static. If the theory of relativity is wrong, then the best proof of the Big Bang theory is also wrong. It would be very awkard for a theist to deny the theory of relativity, because it has implications on the Big Bang. If you invoke the Big Bang, you invoke relativity. If you deny relativity, you can't invoke the Big Bang. It's difficult, if not impossible, to prove premise two without the use of relativity. [3]I shouldn't argue by implication only, however. There are many proofs of general relativity, some complex and some simple, so I will show that relativity is true using one of the simpler arguments. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton's equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true. [4]This leads us to a problem with the KCA that has been ignored by theists in the mainstream literature. It's even ignored by atheist philosophers. If the theory of relativity is true, then there cannot be an initial state of time. The theory that the KCA assumes ends up being its demise. There are equations derived from the theory of relativity called the 'Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker' metric. This metric describes a universe that is homogeneous, isotropic, and expanding universe. [6]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.The KCA assumes that there is an initial state of time. Premise two of the KCA assumes the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity contradicts the assumption that there is an initial state of time. Therefore, the KCA false, because its assumptions contradict one of the most proven theories in all of science.References1: http://www.infidels.org...2: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...3: http://www.pbs.org...4: http://en.wikipedia.org...5: http://plato.stanford.edu...Vale.