The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

In this debate, I will argue that the KCA proves that there exists a personal creator (i. e. , God). I. Formulation 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This is a deductive argument; meaning that if the premises are true and valid, then the conclusion is true as well. [1] We see this fact when we change words to symbols:1) All A's have a C.2) The U is an A.3) Therefore, the U has a C. II. Whatever begins to exist has a cause This premise is an obvious truth--at least more so than its negation. Firstly, it is rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused is unwarrented. Moreover, if something can come into being uncaused, then it's inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Finally, this is confirmed in our experiences as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes. [2] Indeed, we see premise 1 as a necessary truth. David Oderberg argues: We are asked to countenance the possibility of the following situation: the nonexistence of anything followed by the existence of something. The words “followed by” are crucial — how are they to be interpreted? What they cannot mean is that there is at one time nothing and at a subsequent time something, because the nonexistence of anything is supposed toinclude time: to say that at one time there is nothing whatsoever is self-defeating because it is to say that there is a time at which nothing exists — hence something did exist. But it is hard to see how else we are supposed to understand “followed by”; or when the denier of the causal principle says that it is possible for something to come from nothing what are we to understand by “from”? Again it cannot have a causal sense because something is supposed to have come into existence uncaused. All that appears to be left is a timeless contradiction — the existence of nothing and the existence of something. [3]Finally, we should note that this premise does not violate our current knowlege of quantum mechanics for they are dependant upon the pre-existence of the vaccum. III. The universe began to exist This premise is supported by both philisophical and scientific evidence. A. Philisophical i) There cannot have been an infinite regress of past events. In other words, the series of past events MUST be finite and have had a beginning. We know that it is impossible for an actually infinite number of things to exist; therefore, an infinite number of past events simply cannot exist. Let us not loook at a philiosophical paradox that result if an infinite number can exist. [4] ii) Hilbert's hotelContradiction argues [5]: Suppose that we have a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms and that an actually infinite number of guests arrives. The manager easily accomodates the guests, and that's that. But now suppose that another guest arrives. "No problem! " says the manger, and he moves the guest in room #1 into room #2, the guest in room #2, into room #3, and so on. In a flash, the fully occupied hotel suddenly has one more room. But how can this be? The hotel was already full! Now suppose that an actually infinite number of new guests arrives looking for rooms. Without breaking a sweat, the manager moves each guest into a room that is twice his own. As a result, all of the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the guests are accomodated without issue. But again, how can this be? The hotel was already full prior to their arrival! But now suppose that all of the guests in the even numbered rooms check out. It would still be the case that the hotel had just as many guests as before. In fact, with some re-arranging, the manager could turn his half empty hotel into one that's jam-packed. But how can this be? Hilbert's hotel is rightly absurd, and it illustrates the absurdities that could result if actually infinite sets did exist in reality. Because mathematical operations involving actually infinite sets lead to contradictions, they cannot exist in reality. B. ScientificThe 2nd Law of Thermodynamics predicts that a FINITE amount of time, the universe will grind down to a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state. But if it has already existed for an infinite amount of time; then the universe should now be in that desolate state. Therefore, scientist have concluded that the universe existed a finite time ago and is now in the process of winding down. [6] IV. Therefore, the universe has a cause We have already concluded the universe has a cause. But why think that this cause is God? Well, contradiction argues:It must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. It must also be changeless, since there was no time prior to the creation of the universe. Interestingly enough, this also lends credibility to the notion that the cause was personal, for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. We are therefore warranted in concluding that God exists. [7] V. Conclusion I believe I have defended all premises according to the rules of the debate. I have shown that the universe MUST have a cause; and to say that G-d did it is warrented. Bibliography 1. "The Cosmological Argument: The Kalam Version. " . http://www.damaris.org...2. Craig, William. "Five Arguments for God. " . http://www.henrycenter.org...;3. David S. Oderberg, "Traversal of the Infinite, the “Big Bang” and the Kalam Cosmological Argument", Philosophia Christi 4 (2002): 305-36 quoted in Kohai-vs. -Contradiction debate . http://www.debate.org...;4. Craig, William. "Five Arguments for God. " . http://www.henrycenter.org...;5. Kohai-vs. -Contradiction debate "The Kalam Cosmological Argument. " . http://www.debate.org...;6. See sources 2 and 3 7. Kohai-vs. -Contradiction: "There is no God. " . http://www.debate.org...;[round 2]