The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Premise 1: My opponent attempts to skirt the issue of substantiating the claim that “everything that begins to exist has a cause” by asserting it is a metaphysical truth and hence an apriori statement, thereby exempt from evidential support. What he fails to note is that before one can make a claim and expect it to be accepted he must first justify the statement. He has not done so. I’ve pointed out the error in appealing to experience to show that “things beginning to exist have cause” does not reflect the “beginning” that the KCA requires, which is a de novo creation. To equate the mundane conversion with such a beginning is to commit the fallacy of equivocation. That simply asserts the causal relation of “beginning” is a metaphysical truth does not help his case when he has failed to substantiate this position. He then asserts essentially that only “creation ex nihilo” is acausal, with any other creation ex material being by definition caused. He does not substantiate this. What cause, then, can he point to with regards to say quantum fluctuation? The closest thing to “cause” that such an event has is at best its nature- that described in the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty. This of course does not actually point to a cause except in a very loose, metaphorical sense. His quote only supports my case since after his quote, Frohlich says: “For example, in the photoelectric effect, the emission of the electron is caused by the absorption of a photon”. This does not meet the criteria of causation that say the “coming into being” shows, like say the artist and his painting which is of closer relations that the cause of the universe and KCA brings. With regards to the transitions, he concedes the point and yet fails to understand its implications, citing Rome as nevertheless as having come about. This may work in a more conversational sense where the rigorous definition of “beginning” is not needed, but given this is one of the premises of the KCA, that does not fly here. When can we point to Rome actually existing as a nation? How many people does it need? What government does it need to be legitimized to be recognized as thus? In other examples, when does a clump of cells become a human? This shows a conversion in the overall view- parts which simple are different arrangements that are in constant state of flux. This further highlight the question begging and the compositional fallacy that my opponent makes to make his point. The universe as I’ve outlined in the original post is quite simply “all that exists”, and is not an “arrangement” in and of itself. Whatever physically exists would mean the universe exists- which all ties to its compositional makeup of energy being its root. That being said, to equate arrangements that arise from within the “existence” to existence itself and to draw a conclusion is thus committing a compositional fallacy. It’s also interesting to note that my opponent claims that a creation ex nihilo is impossible, and yet that is precisely what he is proposing had occurred. A cause is not a thing in and of itself- it is a description of the method that brings about the effect. A causal agent is the thing that causes, which I assume my opponent would determine is God. As I’ve pointed out in the previous round, a cause also must have something TO cause for the effect to take place- that is how cause is understood and hence the incoherence of his position. What did god create the universe out of? He then further misses the point, continuing to argue as if I’ve ever made the argument that things do come out of existence uncaused and out of nothing. I’ve pointed out that we have no evidence of anything ever beginning to exist (ie creation of energy) and thus we have no reason to say It ever did. If there were any “cause”, it would be entirely intrinsic to itself (which is a very loose definition of cause that does not quite apply to the KCA anyway). His appeal to metaphysic falls more or less in the same vein that he objects to my example with regards to the compositional fallacy. He deems an object as “real metaphysical objects” which he has not defined. I challenge this, and in fact say that what’s real is energy. What we define as objects however are no more than the arrangements of the said energy being formed into atoms and compounds in the macro scale. All properties simply arise from this. Just as my “human cell/body relation” fails, his example of “discrete objects” fail precisely because they are particular arrangements, while the universe is simply the whole of what the “things” are composed of. Premise 2: He continues to assert that his argument has gone unrefuted, while refusing to even address the fact that he has effectively made the claim that the mathematical world and the real world are not linked in denying one very real mathematical concept. His attempt at finally addressing the argument leads to him essentially making erroneous claims regarding the mathematical concepts. His example of negative integers not being manifest in reality fails since it DOES manifest itself in reality. For example, we have negative energy. He attempts to confuse the issue by saying “it’s impossible to have infinity apples”. Given the fact that matter/energy is finite, of course. But we’re talking about time and the passage it undergoes in which there’s no limit as constrained in say apples and its existence in the universe. My opponent further attempts to argue against infinity by attacking its conceptual validity by pointing to perceived contradiction. He in fact contradicts himself by conceding that infinity is conceptually valid, and hence fails as I’ve noted above in my previous rounds. Furthermore, even granting the possibility of time being finite does in no way provide problems, seeing as time has a very specific definition within physics, in that It is a field that arises as part of the spacetime. This means the universe does not exist IN time, but that time exists IN the universe, and hence the finitude of time does not depend on the existence of the universe. Of course, unless my opponent is willing to concede that timeless existence is impossible (in which case the cause is also impossible), he will have to at least recognize this. This “timeless universe” which many theorems posit as unexpanded Initial Energy Density faces no “infinite duration” problem, if it even were a problem to begin with. Even more problematic for my opponent- say time must be infinite for the universe and such for it to exist. What then? Causality is also temporal. How can there be a cause for the universe to begin existing if there were no temporal antecedent within which there could be a cause? With regards to cosmology, my opponent accuses me of incoherence, despite the fact that I’ve pointed out I was using the term “time” with regards to the “pre-expansion universe” in the Vilenkin paper as “loosely defined”. This was simply to point out that many theorems show that time and space arising to form the universe had a prerequisite antecedent, that of the Initial Energy Density. This also highlights another flaw that my opponent has committed- that of equivocation. The universe as physicists use is strictly within the domains of “spacetime”- simply an existing IED is not “universe” in their theorems. I’ve defined it as more than that- as physical existence, or energy itself in the opening round. This means that the physicists say the universe beginning does not fit the “creation ex nihilo” view that my opponent espouses. In order to show that the universe began he would be required to show that energy was created. He has not done so, nor have any physicists ever propose such a view. What IS proposed by physicists, however, is a vastly different view of time than what my opponent adheres to, which all but renders his argument against infinity wholly irrelevant.