The Kalam Cosmological Argument

This premise is to rid ourselves of the notion or postulation that things can pop in to being uncaused out of nothing… I have addressed that virtual particles do indeed pop into (and out of) existence all the time – with measurable effect - so on this subject my opponent is misinformed. However, I will grant that we have no evidence for anything else just popping into existence (such as horses) within our universe. And this agreement suggests my opponent does not believe in the biblical Genesis account of creation where the heaven, earth, light, land, seas, plants, stars, the sun, the moon, sea creatures, birds, cattle, creeping things, wild animals, man, and woman (in that order) just popped into existence within our universe any more than I do. Otherwise, my opponent would believe that a horse (or perhaps a creeping thing) could just pop right into existence beside him. …when I say "universe", I mean all space, matter, time, and natural energy that exists… I can accept my opponent’s general definition of the universe (space-time, matter and energy – if we include ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ which comprise the bulk of our universe), with the caveat that it defines only the observable universe we can identify at present. From earth, we can see about 46 billion light years in any direction, but due to the speed of light, we are limited from seeing farther. … all matter and energy gets converted into one single point, what we would call a "singulartity" [sic]..a point to which literally nothing existed. The assumption that the universe may have begun with an actual singularity is probably inaccurate. Physicist Stephen Hawking helped originate the idea, but later writes, “So in the end [the work of Penrose and Hawking] became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I [Hawking] am now trying to convince other physicists there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.” [12] Furthermore, an inflationary universe is modeled without using singularities. And even when equations regress to the mathematical point of a singularity, most modern physicists do not believe an actual singularity is likely in nature, but rather mathematical singularities merely point to current ignorance absent a unified theory that can marry general relativity with quantum mechanics. [13] [14] Infinity is not something that can be possessed, or traversed. It is a mere concept that cannot exist in reality. I’ve dealt with this above, but will expand upon it here. Ironically, my opponent calls above for our universe to begin with a singularity, where calculating the density of the universe means dividing by zero volume, yielding infinity. [14] Now he tells us infinity does not exist in reality. If we recall our earliest introduction to geometry, we will remember the definitions of a line (a straight set of points that extend in opposite directions without ending), a ray (part of a line that has one endpoint and extends in one direction without ending), and a line segment (part of a line between two endpoints). [15] Let’s engage in some thought experiments… Case 1: The multiverse is infinite. In this event, a natural, dynamic cosmos could have always existed and always will. As time (as measured in the multiverse which could encompass a dimension of time like our universe) progresses, it will give rise to many baby universes. If we model the multiverse on a line (as defined above), we need only identify one point along that timeline relative to surrounding points before and after to place the inception of our universe amongst the infinite. The theist also pictures this extra-universal timeline when imagining a god who has “always” existed, and also must place a point along an infinite timeline where God chose to create the universe. However, the theist must also wrestle with the problem of defining why God did not create the universe sooner (or later), given that God in defined as omniscient and has “always” known about the universe he would create. And, once God knows about the universe, what possible reason could he have to procrastinate its inception? Could God even procrastinate given that the moment he conceived of the universe, it could not help but to exist from his all-powerful mind? Case 2: The universe began in a big bang due to the quantum instability of nothing. [16] If this model is accurate, then infinity could be demonstrated by drawing a ray (as defined above), where there is one endpoint (or beginning in this case), but time and space continue on forever. The Christian theist also imagines rays when he believes at some point, God created heaven and hell – places that had a beginning but are ‘eternal’. Case 3: Our universe has a defined beginning and a defined end. Time and space originated in the big bang, and eventually gravity will pull everything together again in a big crunch, thus creating a finite line segment with a beginning and end. (Note: This theory is no longer supported by the majority of cosmologists.) Theists make a logical contradiction when they argue against actual infinities yet use these infinities to describe aspects of their own mythology – unless they envision God as existing like a line segment. So the cause had to be timeless and immaterial. Begs the question and is completely unsupported by evidence. The cause of our universe could very well be dependent upon a dimension of time existent outside our universe, and the material from our universe could very well have been supplied from without. Again, scientists are coming up with tests to prove their hypotheses, whereas my opponent simply makes unsubstantiated fact claims. The cause of the universe also had to have been necessary, meaning the cause could not be a product of anything prior or "before" it… I think I’ve demonstrated successfully the absurdity of theists arguing against actual infinities while imagining them at the same time. If the most complex being imagined can always have existed outside the universe (which itself implies time and space – “always” and “outside”), then a far less complex cosmos that gives birth to universes like ours can be imagined as well. The cause would have also had to have a free will, with the capability of eternally having the will to create EXACTLY when it wanted to create. “eternally” and “EXACTLY when” are again temporal statements, requiring that God live in and be subjected to a dimension of time. My opponent’s logical contradictions abound. The cause also had to be a being on[sic] tremendous power, being able to create from nothing. The assertion that our universe is caused by a “being” is what is in dispute, and I’ve demonstrated many other scientifically supported hypotheses which explain our universe without a magical “being”. So, what do we have here? 1.Immaterial Not proven. 2.Timeless (before the universe) You can’t have a “before the universe” if you don’t have Time. 3.Free will Again, refers to a magic “being” which has not been proven. 4.Necessary in its existence If the universe has a “cause”, then something may exist outside our universe (although that something need not be supernatural or magic) – or the universe could be the byproduct of the attributes of “nothing”. [16] 5.Omnipotent A being that cannot create an actual infinite universe cannot be omnipotent. We can conclude that the cause of the universe must have (and has) these attributes… The conclusions are based upon faulty premises, as I’ve demonstrated. As we can see above, it would seem as if the only being capable (by definition) of creating such a finely tuned, finite universe would be the being that has traditionally been called, "God". This ignores every other possibility that scientists consider, and is a God of the Gaps approach to explain the currently unexplained. If and only if we are to disregard the notion that things pop into being uncaused out of nothing… But we can’t disregard it. Things do pop into being uncaused out of nothing... constantly, in the churn that is quantum foam. ...either the universe is eternal, or there was a[sic] eternal Supreme Being..either way, something had to always be there. Again, my opponent is relying on the concept of an actual infinity (“eternal”, “always”) outside of our universe’s time, claiming elsewhere actual infinities cannot exist. Christians have always maintained that the universe began to exist, as stated in Genesis 1:1 "In the BEGINNING, God created the heavens and the earth". If only the bible would have stated, “In the beginning, God created the universe, including time and space, and all the matter which would eventually form the first hydrogen stars - which would forge and explode heavier elements into the universe - that would eventually be pulled together by gravity to form an insignificant solar system in an insignificant galaxy where earth is the third planet from the sun originating more than 9.1 billion years AFTER God actually created the universe…” If the bible would have said something like that, instead of placing the creation of earth before the sun and stars, then I think Christians would have a more reasonable and scientifically supportable position. But instead, “modern science and contemporary cosmology has confirmed in the past 100 years…” that Christians have been dead wrong when relying on the bible to explain the universe. Sources: [12] A Brief History of Time [13] http://profmattstrassler.com... [14] http://www.scientificamerican.com...=2 [15] http://www.mhschool.com... [16] A Universe From Nothing, Lawrence Krauss