The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not sound

The Universe Began To ExistMy opponent sites The Big Bang theory in an attempt to show that the universe began to exist, however a universe with a finite past doesn't automatically equate to a universe with a beginning. For example, if we go with Richard Swinburne and Adolf Grunbaum's explanation for what it means to begin to exist, then something begins to exist if at a time earlier, it didn't exist. This wouldn't apply to the universe however, because there is no earlier to the universe in which is could have not existed. Con also seems to have no problems with William Lane Craig's explanation of what it means to begin to exist, unfortunately this explanation also applies to God if you fill the variable with God. Of course, this is a huge problem for advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Now, Stephen Hawking's no boundary proposal infers a finite past but with no beginning (like how a sphere has a finite surface area but no real starting point) which is consistent with The Big Bang theory [1] . Also nothing "begins to exist at t" if B-Theory is true (I already explained how this theory is superior to A-Theory) [2]. Thus, even if we accept The Big Bang theory there are good reasons to think the universe didn't have a true beginning. Not even Alexander Vilenkin (one of the main scientists behind the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe paper) believes his paper necessitates a beginning:"[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin Everything That Begins To Exist Has A CauseMy opponent says this premise is obviously true, well if this is the case, then why am I debating him on this specific issue? I'm an intelligent rational human being and I think this premise is absolutely false, I'm not the only one either: "Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition." - Quentin Persifor Smith. American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan.[3]Also with my chair example, my opponent seems to be making a philosophical error when it comes to labels. Now the word "thing" must be defined physically because this argument is for a cause of the universe which has physical properties. However, someone may say that "I began to exist because I didn't exist 100 years ago", but "I" is not physical, "I" is just a concept describing the sum of the brain experience of itself. Also, a "chair" is just a label we give to certain re-arrangements of matter but as far as physical reality is concerned, nothing actually was added or began to exist in physical reality when the chair was made (basically, nothing really began to exist). It would even be difficult to pin point exatly at what time some beginnings occur. I mean, at what time does a chair "begin to exist"? When the first leg was positioned? Second leg? What the seat gets screwed in? When you can sit on it? When the arm rests go on? These words like "chair" only describe pre-existing things that have changed form of been re-arranged in a particular way. As far as physical reality is concerned, we don't have any examples of anything beginning to exist to reference to support the concept this argument is trying to put forward. Maybe quantum fluctuations could fit in the category of " beginning to exist" because they violate the conservation of energy for short periods of time, but these appear spontaneous and acting without external initial causes for these events. Once again, the Kalam Cosmological Argument clearly stands on shaky grounds. Now, my opponent states:But, still, everything that has began to exist has had a cause. There is not a single thing that exists in any way, shape, or form that did not have a cause. Everything that exists according to everyone had some cause to create this existence.There are so many things wrong with this. If there is not a single thing that exists in any way, shape, or form that did not have a cause then this means that God must have had a cause (since this is an argument for the existence of God, the argument under the context presented by my opponent appeals to an infinite regress). Also this causal principle is not accepted by everyone as I have already proved in this debate by quoting physicists and philosophers who disagree with this principle. This causal principle does not have much of an effect when dealing with quantum fluctuations, which seem to be governed by acausal principles.Therefore, The Universe Had A Cause This conclusion is based on the assumption that the first two premises have been demonstrated sufficiently. Since I clearly showed this is not the case, this conclusion can be dismissed. Conclusion The Big Bang theory and other support for this theory indicate a finite past. However, common sense definitions of begin to exist (Swinburne and Grunbaum's) clearly don't apply to The Big Bang (and William Lane Craig's definition hurts his own case). Stephen Hawking's no boundary proposal is consistent with evidence and doesn't require a beginning of the universe as well. Also, B-Theory is more scientifically supported than A-Theory, and under B-Theory nothing "begins to exist at t". Thus, we have good reasons to not accept Premise 2.Now as previously stated, the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the assumption of the A-Theory of time, when the B-Theory if time has more scientific support. Also, even if B-Theory wasn't true, the only examples we have of anything which could be considered something physically beginning to exist are quantum fluctuations, which seem to be governed by acausal principles. Thus, Premise 1 can be dismissed as false.Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.secularhumanism.org...http://www.youtube.com...