Kalam Sucks Butt

I. The chief concernIf this argument is sound, then at some point, there had to have been a state of affairs in which God existed, but the universe did not. And since the universe is all of space, time, and energy, then this state of affairs must've been timeless.The problem is that it doesn't seem possible for such a state of affairs to have been actual. The state of affairs could not have been before the beginning of the universe because the beginning of the universe marked the beginning of time, and there's no such thing as "before time."But the state of affairs could not have been actual at any point from the beginning of the universe onward either because the universe and time existed from that point on.If a timeless state of affairs in which God exists but the univeres doesn't could not have happened before the universe nor since the beginning of the universe, then that pretty much squeezes it right out of existence. The state of affairs is impossible.So it is impossible for God to have been the creator of the universe. In fact, it would appear that it's impossible for the universe to have had any cause at all. It follows inescapably that "Kalam Sucks Butt."If the universe had no cause, then either the first premise of the KCA is false, the second premise is false, they're both false, or there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere, and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.II. The fallacy of equiovcationThe KCA commits the fallacy of equivocation because the meaning of "beginning" differs from the first premise to the second premise.Notice how Pro defends the first premise. He gives examples of things that begin to exist in the sense of there being a period of time in which the thing didn't exist followed by a time in which it does exist. Rootbeer, robots, and Rolaids® each come into existence in that sense.But in the second premise, when it says the universe came into existence, it can't possible mean in that same sense. There was no time before the beginning of time, so there could not have been a state of affairs in which the universe did not exist followed by a state of affairs in which it did.So the KCA commits the fallacy of quivocation and therefore sucks butt.III. Problems with the first premise1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause to its existence.Stated the way it is, this premise is false, which we know from counter-examples. For example, when Cobalt 60 undergoes beta minus decay, Nickel 60 comes into existence as well as a proton and an electron. A neutron ceases to exist as well as the Cobalt 60.[1] But there is no sufficient cause for these decay events. They are spontaneous events.[2] So the general principle spelled out by the first premise is false. That is why the KCA sucks butt.Pro gave several examples of things that begin to exist with causes, but all it takes is one counter-example to falsify the general principle. At best, all pro is warranted in saying is that a lot of things that begin to exist have causes, but he cannot say that whatever begins to exist has a cause.Pro cites the conservation of mass as further evidence for the first premise, but the convervation of mass is demonstrably false since mass can be converted to energy. The convervation of mass only works as a thumb rule in problems in which no mass/energy conversions take place. Besides, if matter can neither be created nor destroy, then the universe obviously could not have been created. By claiming that God created the universe, Pro undermines his own argument.IV. Problems with the second premise2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.I agree with my opponent that the past is finite. However, Pro makes an unwarranted leap from "the past is finite" to "the universe had a beginning." The fact that this is an unwarranted leap is evident in the fact that God is excepted from this principle. You see, the KCA assumes an 'A' theory of time. That means the present is all that exists, and time is actually dynamic. The present is constantly changing in the future direction. Once the past is gone, it no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist.If the 'A' theory if time is true, it would follow that God is temporal. The reason is because if the present is all that exists, and if God stands in any kind of relationship with the world, then God exists in the present. And tomorrow, God will also exist. So as time moves forward, so does God as long as God stands in some relation to the world.If the past is finite, then not only has the universe existed for a finite period of time, but so has God. God's past cannot be infinitely long if time has not been infinite. God can only be as old as the universe.If a beginning of time implied a beginning of the universe, then it would also imply a beginning of God. But then by Pro's reasoning, that would require that God had a cause, which is unacceptable.William Lane Craig attempts to get around this by saying that "God must therefore be timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe."[3] (Notice he's careful not to say 'before' the universe.) If that's true, then that means it's possible for something to have a finite past without having a beginning. So it doesn't follow that because the universe had a finite past that it therefore must've also had a beginning.Moreover, there's a sense in which the universe has always existed. "Always" implies, "for the entire duration of time." Since the earliest moment of time is synonymous with the earliest moment of the universe, then the universe has always existed. There was never a time when the universe did not exist.V. The strangeness of the universeOur intuitions appear to be suited to the macroscopic world in which we live. The further we delve into the subatomic world, the more counter-intuitive things become. Richard Feynman once said that "nobody understands quantum mechanics."[4] The problem isn't that it can't be mathematically described. The problem is that it can't be modeled or conceptualized. Quantum events appear to be spontaneous and a-causal. Entities can have both the properties of particles and the properties of waves. The strangeness of wave/particle duality is especially evident in the double-slit experiment.[5]Things are strange on the macro-macro level, too. That is, on the scope of the entire universe. For example, we expect, from what we know about physics, that the expansion of the universe ought to be slowing down. But mysteriously, it is accelerating. There are currently no known physics to explain it. "Dark energy" is invoked as a place holder for the unknown. It essentially means "the I-know-not-what" that is causing the acceleration. The relationship between time, gravity, and motion on large scales are also very strange and counter-intuitive.The strangeness of reality is inescapable. Time itself is strange. We know, by the law of excluded middle, that time either had a beginning, or it did not. Either scenario is extremely strange, so there's no escaping the strangeness. Since our intuitions do not serve us well on the boundaries and frontiers of physics, we have to admit that the beginning of the universe is a strange thing for which counter-intuitive possibliities ought to remain open. We ought to say that we don't know what actually happened rather than inferring, from our fallible intuitions, that "God did it."ConclusionTherefore, Kalam sucks butt.*****[1] http://atom.kaeri.re.kr...[2] http://serc.carleton.edu...[3] http://www.leaderu.com...[4] http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu...[5] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc