The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is Unsound

Con has not shown how the PSR is not an example of a false cause which commits the fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Con must address my other two examples. Con defines cause as a "sufficient" reason, however this reason is not qualified [1] Philosophers & Physicists believe there are uncaused events "There is observational evidence, albeit indirect that this uncaused emergence of energy or particles (notably virtual particles) frequently occurs." Quentin Smith [2] Science shows that causes of virtual particle fluctuations would have to be non-local hidden variables. The locality for local hidden variables has been tested by recent and old experiments, and they were ruled out by violations in Bell's inequalities. Therefore, it seems like these fluctuations happen spontaneously without causes. [5] If the ECU is omnipresent then there cant be "nothing" since something always existed. It must follow that the first cause created the universe out of itself therefore P1 would be affirming the consequent [6] Inductively inferring a universe came into being is a fallacy of composition. Con must addresses this objection. If we allowed this, we would end up with Russell"s paradox [7]. P1 is logically invalid. PSR It is logically valid to say that C is necessary if C is a necessary consequence of a necessary proposition. I will explain the Van Inwagen objection. Take the BCCF for example. This is itself a contingent proposition. It must have an explanation or a true proposition which is contingent or necessary. If it is contingent, then this explanation will itself be a part of the BCCF. But if this explanation both explains the BCCF and is contained in the BCCF then inter alia, it explains itself. But no contingent proposition can explain itself! Thus, the explanation of the BCCF must be necessary. But an explanation has to entail that which it explains. Thus entails circular reasoning and absurdity ensues [8] Therefore, BCCF has no explanation and PSR is necessarily false. If a proposition is necessary, it cannot explain any contingent proposition because to explain something is to answer the question "Why not otherwise?" No interpretation of "God exists" as a necessary truth can explain why things were not otherwise. Simultaneous Causation is contradictory and still needs to be addressed.. Contingency of The Universe If the universe came into being, it is equally plausible to have happened by spontaneous quantum tunneling. "As a result of the tunneling event, a finite-sized universe.. pops out of nowhere..Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." Alexander Vilenkin.[9] The leading theory for resolving this has been the inflationary model of the universe" [10]. "There are two varieties of the A-theory, Presentism and the growing block universe. Both assume an objective present..." [11] A theory states that there is an objective now which implies every time has three A-properties. If the A theorist says then, that each time is successively future, then present, then past, but does not have these properties all at once, this will lead to an infinite regress. Events being successively past, present and future uses temporal notions; but until we have a coherent A-theory, we have no coherent conception of time; thus, temporal notions can"t be used to show that the A-theory is in fact coherent by appealing to intuition [12] According to McTaggart"s analysis, time cannot depend on its nature of successive parts, i.e. parts that do not coexist, but on its existence of coexistent parts. This is the paradox. [14] A theorists claim that "t was future at some moment of past time and will be past at some moment of future time. But this objection fails, according to McTaggart because the additional times that are invoked in order to explain t's possession of the incompatible A properties must themselves possess all of the same A properties. According to him, we never resolve the contradiction inherent in the A series, but instead, generate an infinite regress of contradictions [15] Semantics can"t render the B theory implausible just by appealing to the utility of language. The appearance of a flow of time is explicable, under the B theory. Some recent experiments show that the appearance of the flow of time is due to the nature of quantum entanglement [16] The experiment shows that observers within the universe would experience time, even though the Wheeler-DeWitt equation describing the universe lacks a time unit. There would still be causation. It isn't causation that it being claimed to be illusory here, just the flow of time. Presentism cant explain the relativity of simultaneity and the equations of special relativity and quantum mechanics. Physicist Paul Davies notes, "Nothing in known physics corresponds to the passage of time." "We do not really observe the passage of time", "what we actually observe is that later states of the world differ from earlier states that we still remember. The fact that we remember the past is an observation not of the passage of time bit of the asymmetry of time."* It is self-evident [17] See Deng argument [18] The strength of the B theory is due to the data from physics consistent with reality. Time dilation and Length Contraction are used to justify the B theory of time [19] B-Theory is plausibly true because the Minkowskian spacetime interpretation of Special Relativity entails it, and we have good reason to think the interpretation of Special Relativity is true. "Minkowski's interpretation is tenseless because it is described in terms of a 4-dimensional geometrical object called spacetime. All points in spacetime exist. Things are extended in time just as they are in space. Hence, there is no temporal becoming." - William Lane Craig [20] The Space-time interpretation of Special Relativity is plausibly true because a NASA experiment which ended in 2011 confirmed it [21] This would mean the Newton's Theory of Gravity should be true. However Einstein's Theory of Gravity appears to be the correct one. Premise 3 It is conceivable that an immaterial, unchanging, atemporal being/entity exists, for I can think of the properties and the conception of transcendence. On Con"s point how is an unchanging mind conceivable without alluding to a temporal process? Minds are only conceivable within time. The only postulation for implying agent causation is to rule out unfamiliar affiliations. However there is no support for why the ECU must be familiar. If Con agrees it is possible, he is admitting to the fallacy within the premise and its invalidity Con inductive inferrance can be shown as follows: 1). Human beings make decisions 2). The reasons for this are either materialistic, or dualistic. 3). There's no scientific explanation for this phenomenon 4). Therefore, the dualistic explanation is true. There are many things wrong with this argument. Points 2 & 3 are a false dilemma: a) there could be other explanations for this phenomenon and and b) a lack of scientific explanation now, doesn't make the dualistic explanation true thus Con is appealing to ignorance [22] Substance Dualism is false for the following reasons 1.Immaterial minds do not fit with the emerging picture of the physical world. 2. Evolution would"ve had to produce immaterial minds somewhere along the lines of our lineage which seems improbable/ inexplicable and unaccountable. 3.Atemporal Agent causation is incoherent. A mind requires thoughts and thinking [23] 4.Substance dualism gives a very poor account of why brain damage affects the mind 5.Using Occam"s razor, Monism is more plausible than substance dualism Self Identity Con is special pleading to argue for a distinction between the mind and the brain. His example only suggests that we don"t know what will happen to the "self". Since the brain is destroyed by death, the mind as a whole is probably destroyed as well. Since inductively, all known mental activity has a physical basis, there are probably no disembodied minds. Omniscience VS Free Will This potential world is merely stated hypothetically, and doesnt assert that there are two actual worlds. Therefore, while the Strong PSR is compatible with self determinism for creation ex nihilo, it cannot account for free will. Self determinism uses circular reasoning. 1.An agent could have acted otherwise than it did. 2.Actions are events. 3.Every event has a cause. 4.If an event is caused, it is causally determined. 5.If an event is causally determined, the agent could not have acted otherwise Thus, we should not grant the validity of Con"s defence of the premises due to fallacies within and lack of justifications throughout. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro! [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4]http://infidels.org... [5]http://www.quantumphil.org... [6] [7]http://plato.stanford.edu... [8]https://appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com... [9]Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181). [10]http://arxiv.org..., [11]http://en.wikipedia.org... [12]http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au... [14]http://www.academia.edu... [15] http://plato.stanford.edu... [16]https://medium.com...... [17]http://philpapers.org... [18]http://www.academia.edu... [19] @5:23 and @8:00 [20]http://www.reasonablefaith.org...... 21]http://science.nasa.gov...... [22]http://en.wikipedia.org... [23]http://www.merriam-webster.com......