The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Either way, I guess we will get this debate on the go. ArgumentNow, to defend the first premise my opponent says that this shown by science (like The Big Bang), and it is self-evident because we can see this in our everyday life using examples. However, as Quentin Smith notes:"Let's consider the premiss of the argument. The premiss is that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it's false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. "- Quentin Smith, University Distinguished Faculty Scholar and Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University[1]Pro did not mention how The Big Bang actually supported the fist premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He just said it did. This is not a very good argument from Pro without external reasoning. Also, he mentions how things within space-time at the macroscopic scale have beginnings and causes, but that doesn't mean everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is a non-sequitur. Also, the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics shows that things do begin to exist uncaused at the sub-atomic scale:"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[2]"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist[3] Pro has not really supported the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument sufficiently. "Even if the big bang theory of the formation of everything is true, where did what every exploded because that big bang come from? " - ProMy opponent argues that everything came into being at The Big Bang. This means, the universe couldn't have had a cause! This is because, a "cause" would be part of the set of "everything". This makes my opponent's case self-contradictory. Also, the universe does not begin to exist if the B-Theory of time is true. As William Lane Craig notes:"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived. " - William Lane Craig[4]The reason why the KCA depends on A-Theory is because temporal becoming is a necessary condition for anything to come into being. If B-Theory is true though, then there is no temporal becoming. Since Pro has not defended A-Theory, and the KCA rests on A-Theory; the resolution has not been established. Sources[1] . http://www.infidels.org...[2] . http://atheism.about.com...[3] . http://www.infidels.org...[4] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184