The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is Unsound

As per the debate structure, I will make my opening arguments now, and go on to refute Pro's arguments in round 3. To recall, the argument uses the logic: P1: Everything which begins to exist has an efficient cause of its existence P2: The Universe began to exist C1: Ergo, The Universe has an efficient cause of its existence P3: If the Universe has an efficient cause of its existence, that cause is an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, omnipotent, omnipresent personal creator (God) who sans creation. C2: The cause of the universe's existence is God. C3: Therefore, God exists. This forms an inductive argument, so its veracity is not dependent on its deductive logic, but whether or not its logic asserts a sufficiently high probability (to the point of certainty) that the conclusion is correct. In order to defend the argument, all I need to do is defend both the veracity of the premises and the logical validity of the conclusions. P1: "Everything which begins to exist has an efficient cause of its existence" This premise is inductively verified a posteriori. The induction is apparent when we assert this premise based on the prior knowledge that "everything that we have experienced that begins to exist does so with an efficient cause". So, to justify the premise, I must first justify this synthetic statement of causality, and then justify the inductive step to conclude that this assessment of our experience is soundly applied to objective reality. Firstly, it seems apparent that everything we observe to come into existence ex nihilio has an efficient cause. For example, a lamb comes into existence because of the sexual intercourse undertaken by a ram and a ewe. Prima facie, this constant of causality seems apparent. Some examples have been posited, however, to refute the notion that all existence requires an efficient cause. The main one being that of virtual particles, which appear to come into existence spontaneously. Yet nevertheless even these particles have an efficient cause, which is the presence of a magnetic field, a "sea" of potential energy, without which virtual particles cannot come into being. As a cause is defined as a "sufficient reason" (1), virtual particles do have a cause. Hence, it is verified that everything we experience has an efficient cause, now I will justify the leap the premise makes to conclude that, objectively, everything that comes into being has an efficient cause. The principle justification for this leap is the fact that the fundamental particles we experience here on earth are the same as what is present throughout the universe (based on spectroscopic evidence). So if we experience a property of these particles here on earth, we should expect these properties to be present throughout the universe. It is not as if the particles on the opposite side of the universe are different to the particles here on earth. Therefore, the extrapolation from experience to universal reality is a valid one. Hence P1 is justified. P2: The universe began to exist I base this premise on the A theory of time - that which ascribes the objective forward-flow of time and acknowledges that events have tenses. A theory, as opposed to B theory, states that tenses are objective properties of events relative to the present, that is, the point in time which separates actualised events and potential events. One of the reasons that the A theory of time is correct is that, if the B theory is correct, the past, present and future are all actual at the same time and that the conception of the present as a border between past and future is an illusion. Yet this raises a significant question: why then do we all experience the same view of the present as each other? If the present is an illusion, what would determine which point in time we perceive to be the present? It seems absurd to suggest that the present is an arbitrary illusion created by the consciousness. Furthermore, it is unwarranted to simply state something is an illusion without evidence that this is actually the case, especially as such an accusation runs contrary to all our intuitions. We could all be brains in vats, to coin the common analogy, but there is no evidence that this is actually the case and our intuition points otherwise. Now, accepting the A theory of time, we can see that the universe began to exist. This is because the very concept of the universe existing for an infinite time is absurd. To say that the universe is infinite is also to say that the universe has been existing for an infinite time and hence has had an infinite past. An infinite past, in mathematical terms, would amount to infinite seconds (∞ s). So now, I could say that the universe has been existing for ∞ s, but in 10 seconds time I would have to say that the universe has been existing for (∞ + 10)s. But infinity is necessarily the largest number - a number such as (∞ + 10) is an absurdity. Therefore, as an infinite universe leads to absurdities, the negation of such a conclusion must be true. Hence the universe has been existing for a finite time. This is the same as saying that the universe began to exist. Thus P2 is verified. C1 deductively follows from P1 and P2. I need not defend a deductive conclusion as it is, by definition, absurd to negate it (unless, of course, one negates the premises). P3 is arguably the most difficult premise to justify, as it makes so many claims. I will go through them individually and justify why the efficient cause of the universe possesses all the attributes presented in P3. Uncaused? To be caused to is to have been created - to have a beginning. If a being is beginningless then it follows that this being is uncaused. As I will explain below, the efficient cause of the universe (which I will hereupon call 'ECU' for the sake of character count), is beginningless. Beginningless? A beginning of a being entails that said being has been existing for a finite period of time - which is also to say that it's existence is bounded by time. Yet time cannot bound the existence of the ECU because time is contained within the universe. The ECU must be outside the universe as otherwise it would have created itself, which is paradoxical. As it is outside the universe, its existence cannot be bounded by that which is within the universe i.e time. Therefore, the ECU is beginningless because its existence cannot be bounded by time. Changeless? / Timeless? First off, it is important to note that the ECU is outside the universe (as otherwise it would have created itself), and therefore it is outside time. It is timeless. Change, on the other hand, necessitates a temporal transformation in essence - without time there can be no change. Therefore, as the ECU is timeless, it is also changeless. Immaterial? / Spaceless? As mentioned above, the ECU is outside the universe. Yet as the universe is 'all existing matter and space considered as a whole' (2), all matter is necessarily within the universe. Therefore anything outside the universe must be immaterial. Ergo, the ECU is immaterial. Omnipotent? This claim is more inductive than deductive. The reasoning that the ECU is omnipotent is based around the fact that a lack of omnipotence is instilled by a limiting physical factor. E.g I cannot lift up an elephant due to the limiting factor that my arms can only apply a given force, that which is less than the weight of an elephant. The ECU is outside the universe and so cannot be physically affected in any way - this includes limiting factors. As the ECU cannot therefore have a limiting factor, there can be no physical limit to its power. Hence it is omnipotent. Omnipresence? For something to not be omnipresent is to entail that this being is spatially limited - it can only occupy a certain amount of space at a given time. However, the ECU cannot be spatially limited because it is outside the universe and hence cannot be limited by that which is inside the universe. As the ECU is not spatially limited, it is omnipresent. Personal? The ECU must be personal because, firstly, it must be immaterial because it is outside the universe. Yet an immaterial essence can only be an abstract essence such as a number or a logical device, or a personal mind. It cannot be the former because abstract essences cannot create anything. Therefore by process of elimination, the ECU must be a personal mind. Sans creation? A beginningless being cannot have a beginning. Without a beginning, it is nonsensical to suggest that there can be a creation. Ergo, the ECU sans creation because it is beginningless. As I have verified all of God's ascribed attributes, P3 is verified. C2 is justified because the attributes presented in P3 pertain to the established definition of the God of classical theism. C3 is justified because a non-existent being cannot cause anything, and as we have established that God is the cause of the universe, we can conclude that God exists by virtue of the axiom that the universe exists. As I have justified all the premises and conclusions, the argument is sound. Thus I negate the resolution. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...