The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A CauseMy opponent starts off his last round with a fallacious red-herring. He claims that I never responded to ex nihilo nihil fit. This is because I never contested ex nihilo nihil fit, I only contested the fact that it proves the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Since Pro never supported that it was necessary for "x" to come into being from nothing, in order for "x" to be considered uncaused; Pro has not affirmed the first premise. He never refuted the argument from Wes Morriston that a sufficient cause is required for a casual process. Pro is appealing to some extremely loose definition of causation, by which something is caused if it finds origination in an ontological antecedent. We are left with no reason to prefer this view of causation over a stricter view. Since Pro has the burden of proof; the first premise is negated in context. Pro also asserts that the fact that we view things that begin to exist have causes makes the first premise more likely than its negation. However Pro hasn't shown how our epistemic knowledge within space-time can produce a probability with regards to everything that begins to exist. This is just a bare assertion from Pro, and a fallacy of presumption.-- A Priori Support Any theory of causation can be put into the framework of either necessary or sufficient causation. If not, then one could argue that it is not even causation. Even with Pro's example of the gun, the trigger pulling is still sufficient for the bullet being released from the gun if the gun is perfectly working. If the gun is not perfectly working, and we just do not know about it, then this is human ignorance. It does not show anything actually indeterministic. There is a difference between something being ontologically indeterministic, and something that we lack knowledge of which creates that impression. Thus, Pro is guilty of using a false-analogy. Additionally, Pro does not understand Aristotelian causality:"In his argument on the intrinsic causes, Aristotle deduces these causes of change by holding this view; that the relationship between the absence and presence of Form cannot happen unless it happens within a persistent substratum that persists throughout the whole transformation process of an object. This is what he called the Material Cause."[1] "First, he [Aristotle] says, there is that of which and out of which a thing is made...This is called the material cause."[2] Aristotelian Causality is pretty clear. If a thing is made; it has a material cause. This even holds true for the universe as he believed God had to have made it ex materia. If God made the universe ex nihilo, then this prima facie violates Aristotelian causality:"Aristotle’s understanding of the four causes begins with the assumption that is present in all Greek philosophy, the notion of pre-existing matter." [3]Pro appeals to Aristotelian Causality, but rejects it simultaneously by claiming a thing can be formed, or made without a material cause. A Material cause for a thing was fundamental to Aristotle's theory of causality. Since we are left with no alternative theory of causality from Pro; this alone negates the resolution. Now:"Con has not shown how something can come from nothing uncaused, and he has not offered any true examples of something that can." - ProThe above is a fallacious shifting of the burden of proof. I do not have to disprove the first premise, Pro has to prove the first premise; which was not accomplished. Also, as far as the dent is concerned, even if "x" is part of "y", it doesn't follow from this that "x" is not its own entity. We all are all part of the universe, but I am still an individual. Therefore, we can dismiss this bizarre logic from my opponent.-- A Posteriori SupportAs far as this section is concerned, Pro has not shown how quantum mechanics does not prove him wrong. Once more this is shifting the burden of proof regardless. My claim was that because things behave differently at the quantum level, we can not infer truth abut the sub-atomic scale based off of the macroscopic scale alone. This means that our every day experience does not affirm the first premise here. Also, many scientists do believe that quantum mechanics refutes the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville[4]"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist[5] Pro did not even scratch the surface.Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist-- If The B-Theory Of Time Is True...Pro does not address McTaggart's Paradox which proves that A-Theory is impossible, thus it stands, and the resolution is negated. Pro also did not address my argument appealing to the Minkowski space-time interpretation of Special Relativity, thus it stands, and the resolution has been negated, as I demonstrated that the B-Theory of time is true which is incompatible with premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (as temporal becoming is a necessary condition for something to come into being): “[T]he theory of relativity conceives of events as simply being and sustained relations of earlier and later, but not as 'coming into being'” - Adolph Grunbaum This, basically, is just embarrassing for Pro, as he completely ignored the most important points of this debate. Pro goes on to say that the universe would still require a cause even if it was eternal. However, this is the Leibniz Cosmological Argument Pro is mentioning, not the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This means Pro is switching the goal posts and changing the entire course of the debate. Either way, his argument fails because it is based on "motion" which requires temporal becoming. Since there is is no temporal becoming ontologically under a tenseless framework, not even appealing to Leibniz in this context can get Pro's points off of the ground. If B-Theory is true, there is no ontological motion or mutability. Therefore, we are left without any reason to think the universe is contingent and requires a cause even under a Leibnizian framework. Also, as far as the Grim Reaper Paradox is concerned, Pro did not even defend it. If he tried to, we would see that it does indeed presume a tensed theory of time as it deals with the successive addition of moments. -- If The A-Theory Of Time Is True... As I stated in my first round, there is a distinction between: (i) A starting point of the universe (a 1st state) (ii) A starting point of the universe which came into being from no starting point of the universe, e.i. "nothing" (transition from no 1st state, to a 1st state) (i) follows from (ii), as the truth of (i) is included in (ii) itself. There is no logical or metaphysical link requiring (ii) to follow from (i). An a posteriori argument will not work, as any examples given will have time as a background. Arguments for a finite past only demonstrate, at best, (i) not (ii). If A-Theory is true and the universe has a finite past, it would not follow that the universe came into being, or violates ex nihilo nihil fit under Atheism. ConclusionPro did not provide a theory of causality which supports his position. Also, I proved that B-Theory is incompatible with premise 2, and that B-Theory was true. Pro also did not even show that a finite past equates to a coming into being! Clearly, the resolution is negated. Sources [1] http://niallmarkey.hubpages.com... [2] http://www.britannica.com...[3] http://philosophicalthoughts4all.blogspot.ca...[4] http://atheism.about.com...[5] http://www.infidels.org...