The Kalam Cosmological Argument

While I applaud my opponent’s efforts of research and presentation, I urge readers not to be fooled by verbosity. Con’s seemingly eloquent rebuttal gives the appearance of content and depth where none actually exists. == Response == Con begins their rebuttal by objecting to the use of the term “cosmological” in the title of the argument. Con claims this is an Appeal to False Authority fallacy by usurping a scientific term to describe something that is “inductive." (With an accompanying history lesson that is wholly irrelevant). By attacking the argument’s name, Con has done nothing to attack the argument itself. The name bears no weight on the argument’s content; it’s just a title used to promote common understanding. It could be called “The Kalam Cupcake Argument” and it wouldn’t matter. The premises and conclusion are still the same. This accusation of the argument being “inductive” is misplaced. To the contrary, the Kalam argument is completely deductive. A deductive argument is simply an argument whose conclusion necessarily follows given the premises. If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. For example: All cars have wheels. This is a car. Therefore, it has wheels. That’s a deductive argument, and the Kalam follows the exact same form. Con then moves to attack Premise 1 by saying CP-symmetry violation and zero point energy demonstrate that not every beginning has a cause. CP Symmetry Violation (CPSV): I’m unsure how this supports Con’s argument. CPSV is merely the discovery that subatomic particles decay by the Weak Force differently than previously predicted by the Standard Model. Such a discovery offers clues to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance observed throughout the universe. While this is highly interesting, it has nothing to do with causeless beginnings. In fact, quite the opposite – it seeks to explain the causes of what astronomers are observing. Consider the following quotes: “cosmological observations that show how the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe has to be explained in terms of a dynamical generation mechanism [aka, cause], what is called a model of baryogenesis, incorporating CP violation…” [http://arxiv.org... (emphasis mine)] And from Cronin’s own paper, cited by Con: “A mechanism [cause] has been proposed with CP violation as one ingredient which leads from matter-antimatter symmetry in the early universe.” In any case, there is tremendous uncertainty about what CPSV even means. Again, from Con’s own source: “does the CP violation we observe today provide supporting evidence for these speculations? We simply do not know . . ." Zero Point Energy (ZPE): I am unable to access Con’s source because it requires a subscription. However, Lamoreaux’s experiment was merely a confirmation of the “Casimir Effect” first predicted in 1948. [http://www.britannica.com...]. Once again, while interesting, this does not prove something can come from nothing. A “vacuum” does not indicate nothingness. It simply means a space without matter, and space is still something. Indeed, Con’s own source on dark energy confirms: “empty space is not nothing. Indeed, space has amazing properties . . . ” ZPE itself is merely the manifestation of particles producing minimal vibrational energy even at absolute zero in accordance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At base, when cosmologists claim the universe came from nothing, they don’t really mean “nothing.” As cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin admits: “although a universe… can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time, or matter, something is in place beforehand – namely the laws of physics. . . that raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe?” [http://discovermagazine.com...]. So to say that ZPE proves something can come from nothing is a misnomer because we don’t really mean “nothing.” We mean something abstract, like the laws of physics or a fluctuating multiverse. At best, ZPE does not supply enough evidence to depart from the constantly observed status quo “out of nothing, nothing comes.” In a broader sense, we have other theoretical reasons to doubt that “nothing” can be a creative force. If something can be created from nothing, why do we not see this all the time? Why aren’t race cars and pencils popping into existence out of nothing? What properties restrain nothingness to only creating universes or ZPE? This of course is absurd, because nothingness has no properties, otherwise it would be something. Premise 1 stands. Con attacks the second premise and conclusion by saying it is an “unsupported assertion” and that “observational evidence . . . violates the assertion of a single point of origin.” Yet, none of Con’s sources actually say this. Con’s Cosmic Distance Ladder source merely describes the difference between using parallax and standard candles to measure the distances of stars. Nothing is said about overcoming the Big Bang – in fact, this source references the Big Bang when describing Red Shift! Con’s source on dark matter/energy also has nothing to say about the Big Bang. It simply describes what dark matter/energy is. In fact, the term “Big Bang” is found nowhere in the article. If “Dark matter and energy have been asserted as overcoming the predictions of the theory [Big Bang]” as Con claims, they have yet to demonstrate how. Finally, Con’s cited interview with Prof. Silk does nothing to attack the Big Bang either. When Silk is asked the question “Is the universe finite or infinite?” his answer is “We don’t know.” When pressed about what came before the Big Bang, Silk responds: “Maybe long before inflation there was a Universe that was collapsing . . . so there was already a history before the Big Bang.” So again, Silk is not saying “nothing” caused the Big Bang, but merely “something” we are currently unaware of did. This is completely in line with the Kalam argument, which simply concludes the universe had a cause that transcends space/time. The truth is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in its belief that the universe has a beginning. Not the least among these is Stephen Hawking, who concluded in his lecture The Beginning of Time – “the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.” [http://www.hawking.org.uk...]. Con complains that saying “It either has a beginning or it does not” is an unsupported assertion. How? What could be a possible third alternative? Rather, I propose this is a logical necessity. Something either begins or it does not. What alternate option is there that makes this a mere “assertion”? The majority of available evidence confirms that the universe began to exist, and that this beginning had a cause. Premise 2 and conclusion stand. Finally, Con unleashes an off-topic critique of religion and creator worship. This has nothing to do with our debate. I never mentioned anything about God or religion in my argument. I merely forwarded that if the universe began to exist, then the universe had a cause. I see no need to respond further on this point. == Conclusion == Con’s attacks have so far failed. Attacking the argument’s name does nothing toward debunking its content. I have also shown that exactly zero of Con’s sources say anything about causeless beginning or things coming from nothings. This leaves Con’s assertions unsupported and therefore invalid. Finally, Con’s parting shot against religion is irrelevant to this debate. We have no evidence of something coming from truely nothing. We have ample observable evidence of something coming from other things. Out of nothing, nothing comes. The universe came into existence, therefore the universe came from something. The Kalam Cosmological Argument remains sound.