The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is a Sound Argument for God's Existance

Ron has been a great friend of mine for a while and it is a pleasure to be debating with him. I will also start with the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA):1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence. There are a lot of problems with the KCA that it is hard to actually know where to start. Both of the premesies are wrong and I will (hopefully) explain why. I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of its Existance. First, what "begins to exist"? As the Law of Conservation of Mass says, as quoted by Ron-Paul: "In any physical or chemical change, matter is neither created nor destroyed but merely changed from one form to another. " What do I mean? Consider your car. Your car did not "begin to exist" rather it merely changed states from one form to another. And that is exactly how the universe is. The universe is eternal and my hypothesis is that it rather changed states from a hot dense core (big bang singularity) to where it is now. So in short, this premise is baseless. It is the fallacy of "bare assertion" or "Ipse dixit" [. http://en.wikipedia.org...;] Moreover, we can observe cases of energy coming without any cause. They are called "fluctuations. " In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)Another case is creation of matter from a state of zero energy. It is possible because energy is positive and negative: There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses. In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction? It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies 1983: 31-32) Conclusions regarding premise 1:1. The claim is baseless;2. Nothing "began to exist" rather it has changed over time; II. The Universe has a Beginning of Its Existence. Scientists have NEVER proved that the universe has a cause. The BBT is not concerned with the origin of the cosmos; rather, it is concerned with its development over time. So science has NEVER proved this point; contarary to what a LOT of Theists believe. III. Why the KCA is Wrong - The "B" TheoryThe B-theory states that both past, present, and future all exist in a rd or n+1d block, and the present is the current image seen o the progression throughout this lock, no more real than those before or after. (Markosian, Ned 2010) This makes sense to say that the universe has had a past space-time boundary, it doesn't make sense to say it 'began to exist' as our bock was always there. The KCA rest on the A-Theory of time [3] which unfortunately for my opponent, and Dr. Craig, most phsycists are B-theorists. [4] IV. Why the KCA is Wrong - Iterating to Infinity In his debate with Mr. Infidel, debate. org user "Thraymachus" notes:If there are a past-infinite ensemble of causal events, then there is no first cause of the universe, in the same way there is no ‘first’ negative integer. Note this does not demand an infinite past duration of the universe – we can ‘cram in’ the infinite number of causal events hyperbolically, for example. (Thrasymachus 2011) V. Final ConclusionsBoth of the premises on the KCA are wrong. Moreover, it can be shown that the universe is indeed infinite in age and has evolved forms over time. Moreover, the KCA is wrong via the theories of time and the problem of iterating to infinity. Thank you. VI. Bibliographies and footnotes1. Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Quoted <. http://www.infidels.org...;2.Markosian, Ned, "Time", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed. ), URL = <. http://plato.stanford.edu... >.3. The A-Theory is just the opposite. It states that only the present exists and the future will come into existence later on. See the url above. 4. . http://philpapers.org...;5. . http://www.debate.org...;