The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is Unsound

Thanks Philocat! I look forward to a riveting exchange of views. Due to character constraints, I could not defend everything in round 2. Please note, I use the phrase "comes into being ex nihilo" and "begins to exist" interchangeably. The first premise was reformulated to reduce the time taken to explain the terminology Premise 1 - "Everything we know which comes into being ex nihilo has an efficient cause" Premise one faces the problem of induction. Although inductive reasoning can affirm probability, it lacks justification and hence, its soundness cannot be established. With Hitchens' razor, prima facie plausibility isn't sufficient in determining how the world objectively is. In the first premise, if the everything which is being addressed here must be the universe itself, then this would be a case of circular reasoning/converse error. If not, there would be no justification for everything having an efficient cause as this would simply be committing the fallacy of composition. Even if it had a cause, it doesn't follow that it still has one. Fallacy of Composition: P1) All examples of causes involve parts within the universe P2) Our sense of causality is only based on parts within the universe P3) The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole if it is true of some, or every part of the whole. P4) Claiming the universe had an cause (efficient or otherwise) is committing the fallacy of composition P5) If P4 is fallacious, the kalaam cosmological argument is unsound C1) P4 is fallacious, ergo, the kalaam cosmological argument is unsound P2 is logically self evident until we have an account for causality not relating to parts within the universe. Thomas Aquinas made the a posteriori argument for efficient causes based on empirical observation and thus, its conclusion cannot be followed with certainty. We have never witnessed anything come into being ex nihilo. The only support for this assumption is based on the popular philosophical definition for it and for an efficient cause. The "efficient cause" of an object is equivalent to that thing that brings something about. For example, in the case of a statue, it is the person chiseling away which transforms a block of marble into a statue. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org.... The mere notion of nothing is contradictory and inconceivable. For example, asking why doesn't anything appear spontaneously is nonsensical in the sense that the very notion of nothing doesn't exist anymore, if it ever did. One may argue that nothing is the absence of anything, but in the very absence of logic, logic cannot be applied to this notion, as it can be said that something can come from nothing. As William Lane Craig himself puts it, its validity is only self evident if the metaphysical intuition of nihilo nil fit is adopted. However, intuition cannot be proven to be reliable as there are many different intuitions on how the universe started and due to the lack of clarity and definition of the abstract conception any defense for the existence of intuition is unfounded. Also, one cannot derive an inductive law from causality and apply it to causality itself. This would be the equivalent of saying all swans are white due to seeing only white swans. Though at first glance, this may be seen as inductively plausible, it is not deductively sound. For example, virtual particles are not known to have any known cause. Simply stating that the vacuum/ the universe is a requirement for this to happen lacks justification, and would there constitute to an argument from ignorance. Another example, can be when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we cannot say there is a known cause. Another example can be radioactive decay. http://science.howstuffworks.com....... If one purports Quantum events as due to probabilistic causality, in doing so, they will admit that the first cause could also be due to probabilistic causality. Not to mention, there are difficulties with the spurious concept of causality which are missed by Thomas' notion of the efficient cause of a factor such as: (1) accidental correlation (accidental generalizations need not always be causal relations and thereby, applying this to the universe is an informal fallacy of false cause called post hoc ergo proter hoc), (2)simultaneous causation and (3) the B theory of time. Problem of Simultaneous Causality The best example for this is to propose the idea of a ball resting on a pillow existing in that state eternally, then the cause would not be said to have preceded its effect. If eternally means eternal in the same sense of a block universe then in an ontological sense, the block universe doesn't come into being. Also, if any tenseless theory of time is acknowledged, it invalidates the cosmological argument. To safely justify simultaneous causation the tensed theory of time must be shown to be true. However, it is hard to wrestle with the idea of anything eternal under the tensed theory of time. Also, there is no way to know what caused what in simultaneous causation. One problem with simultaneous causation is that if A can cause B at the same time, what's not to say that A can cause B which can cause C at the same time too? You can then imagine an infinite amount of causes and effects and say they all occur simultaneous and end up with a what can appear to be nonsensical. If an infinite number of simultaneous causes and effects isn't possible, then one occurring simultaneously, probably isn't either. If it is claimed that A being had to will change from a state of timelessness to one with time, then it needs to be shown that consciousness, self awareness or will has causal powers. This is also a problem but I will digress for now. Simultaneous causation produces the same paradox that the logical contradiction of an actual infinite existing brings. Presentism vs Eternalism There is no reason to favor the A theory of Time over the B theory of Time, rather than appealing to its familiarity or utility. Without a preferred reference frame for identifying a simultaneous moment which would be called "now", one has to conclude that presentism is false. It is more probable that Minkowskian interpretation has greater explanatory rigor than the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of space-time. The Neo-Lorentzian interpretation violates the symmetry principles of Earman (1989, p.46), which state that every symmetry of space-time posited by a theory should be symmetrical of that theory's dynamical laws and vice versa. Objections of this are as follows: Gerenal Relativity restores an objective view on temporal relations, eg. an objective notion on the age of the universe Our intuitions lead us to favor Presentism over Eternalism since we intuitively experience the 'flow of time' as something real Answer to 1 - However, the fact that we can approximately determine th age of the universe does nothing to show that presentism has been restored rather it stems from idealization of the model. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com... Answer to 2 - dynamic theories of time do not have an explanatory advantage and nor are tenseless theories of time falsified or rendered implausible by intuition. The reasoning can been found in the following link http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com... Therefore, the both theories of time predict the same intuitions, and hence, the tenseless theory of time cannot be falsified or rendered implausible by intuition. Arguments against A theory of Time P1) Future, present and past are incompatible properties, but p2) In time, every event appears to posses them all C1) P1 & P2 entail a contradiction Arguments against P2 will lead to an argument against a first cause for the universe. Presentism cannot explain the relativity of simultaneity and the equations of special relativity and quantum mechanics. The Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity is unverifiable and therefore, unfalsifiable and therefore, unscientific. Even if this interpretation could be shown to be true, this would not constitute a falsification of Eternalism, since if perfect simultaneity were true, this would not mean the past does not exist nor that the future does not exist. There is also a quantum experiment which shows how time emerges from entanglement, and thus confirms the B theory of time. https://medium.com.... Physics also confirms the B theory of time . Premise 2 - Contingency of The Universe There is strong evidence to suggest inflation is true and a zero energy universe is highly probable. http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov..., http://www.space.com.... All evidence that suggests the universe began to exist is making an assumption. It doesn"t necessarily follow that the universe came into being ex nihilo, only that it had a finite beginning. Premise 3 - Personal Cause Firstly, it makes a false dichotomy. A third option can be an impersonal first cause. The only reasoning to prefer an disembodied mind over an impersonal cause is due to familiarity but leaves no justification for why the first cause, if there is one, must be familiar, nor is there evidence to show that the mind has any causal powers. Not to mention the incoherence of thinking that consciousness can exist without time, as self awareness, thought and free will all rely on the passing of it. Arguments against Substance Dualism P1) If substance dualism is true, then the mind interacts with the material P2) The mind cannot (and therefore does not) interact with the material C1) Substance Dualism is false