The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

Hi Pro! I will respond to each contention as you laid them out. CONTENTION 1 Ah right, I think i know what you are getting at. It's wrong, but i get it. It is wrong because the objection confuses meaning and reference. If God is the sole member of NBE, then the two have the same referent - they pick out the same thing. But, it does not mean that the two statements have the same meaning; because if you knew one statement to be true, then you would know the other to be as well - in which case, the argument would be circular like Pro is suggesting. However, this is not the case. So the argument is neither circular, nor begging the question. CONTENTION 2 Pro asked for another member of NBE, and I gave him one. But, he does not think that they can be used. I would like to stress that they can, but I will give another example anyway. As Quentin Smith states, a Timeless Space also does not begin to exist. [1] CONTENTION 3 No! At no point did I argue, that because everything WITHIN the universe has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause. I never argued that! Instead, I gave 3 independent reasons why we should believe that everything that exists has a cause. If I was committing the fallacy of composition, the argument would go like this: 1) Everything within the universe that began to exist has a cause 2) the universe began to exist 3) Therefore the universe has a cause This would blatantly be a fallacy of composition. But, I gave reasons to believe that EVERYTHING that begins to exist, has a cause. Not just the things inside of the universe. I said: Something cannot come from nothing. Then, if something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything comes into being from nothing. And, I appealed to inductive reasoning to suggest the truth of the 1st premise. At no point did I say that because everything inside of the universe has a cause, therefore the universe has a cause. Because that would obviously be a flagerent use of the fallacy of composition. But no-one has argued that in this debate. CONTENTION 4 Pro asks if I can prove the 2 claims to be true. Well, we can appeal to inductive reasoning, yes. Just like most scientific theories - for example, in the special theory of relativity, the whole thing hinges on the assumption that the append of light is constant in a straight line between 2 points. [2] But, essentially all scientists accept this. Why? Because of inductive reasoning. This is entirely acceptable to believe, because of the same rules of logic we use in the Kalam. Additionally, we have absolutely no reason to believe that the laws of causality is abolished without the universe. What qualities does nothingness have that means that the causality principle is abolished? Nothingness is just that - no matter, no energy - nothing. It is entirely up to you to prove that the same rules of causality do not exist. Because we are appealing to inductive reasoning. You are just guessing, and so you must provide proof. I concur with you with quantum physics - my knowledge is not good enough and so I too will give you quotes " the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima " [3] " The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause " [4] So, Quantum Events don't provide an exception to the causal principle - there is still a cause there, even if it is on a quantum scale. CONTENTION 5 The statement is meaningful Because it removes the need for time BEFORE the event itself. The causal agent can be simultaneous to the event. But in this way, we can argue that actually ALL effects are simultaneous with their causes. Imagine A is the cause, and B is the effect. If A were to vanish before the time at which B is produced, would B nevertheless come into being? Of course not. But if time is continuous, then no matter how close to B's appearance A's disappearance takes place, there will always be an interval of time between A's disappearance and B's appearance. But then why or how B came into being when it does seems utterly mysterious, for there is no cause at that moment to produce it. So, considering all causation is in fact simultaneous, causality IS meaningful, even when there is no time before the event. CONTENTION 6 I have explained in Contention 5 to answer to Contention 6. CONTENTION 7 Yes, I know it does not follow. But it was not meant to, it was not an argument. I was suggesting that in the previous contention that you gave, you were committing the very same thing that you accused the Kalam of doing. You argued that the same causal relations may not exist outside of the universe and so the 1st premise cannot be applied. But, you then said that causal relations DON'T apply differently to timeless entities and that causal relations ONLY exist inside of time. You were self-refuting yourself; that was the point I was trying to give. CONTENTION 8 This is the same point I made in Contention 7. Sources: [1] http://www.leaderu.com... [2] http://www.physics.org... [3] Barrow, J. and Tipler, F.J. (1986), The Cosmological Anthropic Principle - Page 440 [4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...