The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

However, they ultimately fail. Rebutting My OpponentPro has only argued that God is possible, not that God exists. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument attempting to show that God exists, not that God is just merely possible. Since Pro has the burden of proof to show all the premises are true, and my opponent failed; the conclusion has not been established. Additionally, Pro has not shown that his dichotomy of either "pure chance" or "God" is a true-dichotomy (it is in no way self-evident). Did The Universe Come Into Being? If the Kalam Cosmological Argument was sound, then God would be required to explain the universe. I am going to show indirectly that the argument cannot be sound, as the universe can be explained without any appeal to God at all. Pro talks about how energy just appeared. However, by "appear" this means "come into being". It is not clear that the universe came into being, even if it did indeed have a finite past. There is a distinction between:(1) A starting moment of the universe (a 1st state)(2) A starting moment of the universe which came into being from no starting moment of the universe, e. i. "nothing" (transition from no 1st state, to a 1st state)(1) follows from (2), as the truth of (1) is included in (2) itself. There is no logical or metaphysical link requiring (2) to follow from (1). An a posteriori argument will not work, as any examples will involve parts of the universe, not the universe as a whole itself. Arguments for a finite past (The Big Bang, Philosophical arguments ect. ) only demonstrate, at best, (1) not (2). If A-Theory is true and the universe has a finite past, it would not follow that the universe came into being, or violates ex nihilo nihil fit under Atheism. This means, that a finite past of the universe is not sufficient to establish that the universe came into being. In order for it to be true that the universe came into being, the universe must have been out of being (pasty tense not necessary, any type of prior state of affairs established would work). The theist hasn't established that the universe has ever been out of being. It certainly does not follow from a finite past, and is not synonymous with it. Dr, Craig has a definition of coming into being: e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. [1]The definition is insufficient. This is because it only speaks on a starting moment of the universe, not a starting moment of the universe that came from no starting point of the universe. Also, time is tensed under the Moving Spotlight Theory of time but it is an eternalist theory of time[2]. Meaning that a universe under an eternalist framework would have to come into being under Craig's definition, which is simply not the case. Philosophers Richard Swinburne and Adolf Grunbaum have a definition as well[3]. It can be formulated like this:e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at sometime t and (ii) there is time prior to t at which e does not exist. The above definition is not sufficient, because even though priority is necessary, there is no reason why temporal priority is necessary. I developed a sufficient definition with regards to a coming into being: e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) prior to t, is out of being, and (iv) eternalism is falseThe above describes a true coming into being, not just a finite past. Also, it solves the problem of Dr. Craig's definition pertaining to the Moving Spotlight Theory. Here is a diagram (assuming non-eternalism) showing the difference between a true coming into being, and just a finite past: My definition actually describes the model in the top frame, which makes it sufficient. So, while the universe may have had a first state, that doesn't mean that the first state came into being. My opponent must not only show that the universe has a finite past, but that the universe actually began to exist. This has not been accomplished, and Pro has the burden of proof to establish the resolution. If The Universe Came Into Being, Can This Be Explained Without God? If we define the universe as time, space, and everything within space; the universe can be explained without God. Alexander Vilenkin's model of comic origins[4] 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 is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial 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. ConclusionEven if the universe had a starting point, that doesn't mean the starting point came into being from no starting point. We have no solid reason to conclude that the universe began to exist. Also, even if it did, the universe can be explained by the laws of physics, without God needed (space-time is contingent upon the laws of physics, not the other way around). Thus, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails. Sources[1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] . http://web.mit.edu...[3] . http://commonsenseatheism.com...[4] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)