The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Premise 1: Whatever Begins To Exist Has A CauseI agree with this premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is based on the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, which states that out of nothing, nothing comes (something cannot come from nothing). This is a self-evident a priori truth, and it would be metaphysically absurd to deny such a premise. The problem is, the idea that something must come from something only means that everything must have a necessary cause, not a sufficient cause. Ex nihilo nihil fit says nothing on a sufficient cause being required with regards to everything that begins to exist. Why is this a problem? It is a problem because if God exists, then his undertaking of creating the universe would be sufficient to bring it into existence:"I am inclined simply to deny that God's eternally willing to create the universe, properly understood, is sufficient for the existence of the universe...Thus, it is insufficient to account for the origin of the universe by citing simply God, His timeless intention to create a world with a beginning, and His power to produce such a result. There must be an exercise of His causal power in order for the universe to be created." - William Lane Craig[1]This means, that showing that everything that begins to exist has a cause is not enough to demonstrate God (God would be the sufficient cause of the universe). It must be true that everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause; which Pro has not shown. In quantum mechanics, things begin to exist (assuming the A-Theory of time is true) all the time without a sufficient cause. A vacuum fluctuation is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)[2]. Of course, these quantum events are not completely uncaused as they involve a necessary cause (the quantum vacuum), but they lack sufficient conditions. Without the need for a sufficient cause of the universe; God cannot be established using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. God's act of creation would be sufficient to bring the universe into existence. This premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, but trivial. It speaks nothing on the type of cause required for God to be the cause of the universe. It only speaks on necessary causation. Something coming from something does not get one a sufficient cause. Premise 2: The Universe Began To ExistMy opponent states that we would never get to the present if the past was infinite. Now, the arguments for why a successive addition of past events with no starting point cannot exist fail. To say that we would never reach "now", one has to assume a starting point. However, if the past is boundless, then there would be no starting point they could claim they could jump from to reach "now". As philosopher Wes Morriston notes:"The only sense in which [One cannot 'reach actual infinity' by 'successively adding one member after another']is clearly true is this: one cannot, beginning with any one member of an infinite set, complete the task of successively adding in all the others. But what follows from this is only that an infinite series could not have been 'formed' by a 'successive addition' that started with a first member. Why could it not have been formed by a 'successive addition' that did not start with a first member?" - Wes Morriston. Professor of Philosophy University of Colorado, Boulder[3]Pro has not shown how an actual infinity is impossible, or the type of infinity entailed by a boundless past. As far as Hilbert's Hotel is concerned, this just shows that you cannot always run regular mathematical operations on infinity without leading to contradiction. This does not show that infinity cannot exist; that is a non-sequitur. Additionally, Pro sites the BVG theorem to show that the universe must have a finite past. However, the BVG theorem can be easily evaded. For example, Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton evaded the theorem in a paper called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal"[4]. Also, even if we accept this theorem, Alexander Vilenkin proposed a way to explain the beginning in accordance to the laws of physics. Alexander's model of comic origins[5] describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It's plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without a sufficient cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model. So, even if we accept the BVG theorem (which is not necessary), and accept that the universe came into being, it can be explained by the laws of physics. This means, that no God is needed even if this premise is true. Pro still has not even shown that this premise is true. Therefore, he fails. I would even argue, that science shows the universe did not begin to exist. If B-Theory is true, then the Kalam Cosmological Argument is finished. 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[6]The reason is that temporal becoming is a necessary condition for anything to come into being. If B-Theory is true though, then there is no temporal becoming:“[T]he theory of relativity conceives of events as simply being and sustained relations of earlier and later, but not as 'coming into being'” - Adolph GrunbaumWe have good scientific grounds for the claim that B-Theory is true, and thus, the claim that the universe did not begin to exist. This rests on Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein's theory has been tested time and time again, and has passed flying colors. The most scientifically feasible interpretation of this theory is the Minkowski space-time view[7]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[8]), and it has more explanatory rigor with regards to time dilation and length contraction than other interpretations. This interpretation proves B-Theory but spells death for A-Theory, because A-Theory entails a universal "now" moment. The Minkowski space-time view entails that there is no universal "now" moment, and is the most scientifically sound interpretation.We actually have good philosophical and scientific grounds to support the claim that the universe did not begin to existConclusionEx nihilo nihil fit at best shows that everything that begins to exist has a necessary cause. That does not get one a sufficient cause, and thus, it does not get one a creation event. Quantum mechanics shows that sufficient causation is not required. Arguments against an actual infinity fail, the BVG theorem can be evaded, and B-Theory entails that the universe did not begin to exist. Sources[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] http://www.infidels.org...[3] http://spot.colorado.edu...[4] http://arxiv.org...[5] http://mukto-mona.net...[6] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...