The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Format Note: Material both bolded and italicized is quotations from Pro's posts. i. Something cannot come from nothing. Pro says something cannot come from nothing. I pointed out that if that were true, god couldn't create universes out of nothing. Pro's responses: 1. I should have said "non-being" rather than nothing. This is trivial. And I’m not the one who brought up "nothing." 2. God didn't create the universe from nothing, but rather from pre-existing material, himself. This makes no sense. It is the same as saying that the universe already existed before the beginning. ii. If something could come into being without a cause, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into being without a cause. First, that's not an argument. I'm sure Pro would say his god is also inexplicable, but that he is nonetheless true. Second, Infinite regresses and uncaused causes are both inexplicable. That doesn't mean you can pick one that supports your religion reject the other as false because it is inexplicable. The only appealing thing about infinite regress is that it avoids uncaused causes. The only thing appealing about uncaused causes is that they avoid infinite regress. Third, Pro does not get to make rules for the inexplicable. He has no authority to enforce his claim that if a universe once came from "non-being" then lions, tigers, and bears are required to spontaneously occur at times and places convenient for his observation. something which is beginningless cannot have a cause, Pro rejects the rule that everything needs causes on the grounds that he can "plausibly" make up an exception for things that didn't begin. Objections: 1. He didn't prove that exeption; he just assumed it. He has the burden of proof. 2. It is arbitrary and self serving. If I said the universe started with an uncaused Big Mac, would Pro be satisfied? How about an uncaused big bang? He says things need causes until that rule becomes inconvenient, and then arbitrarily changes it. 3. There is no sense in which god is unbegun and the rest of the universe is begun. For any one definition of "begun," either both are begun or both or unbegun. Therefore, Pro's argument fails entirely. The quantum vacuum functions as the efficient cause of these virtual particles. In his second post, Pro carefully distinguishes between efficient cause and material cause. Now he's conflating them. Pro says virtual particles are caused according to the Copenhagen interpretation. In fact, the Copenhagen interpretation's treatment of virtual particles is the primary reason that we question causation. " In the quantum world … there are no relevant details, just pure chance." [6] The cosmologist my opponent interviewed sounds like a bit of a nut-case! Right back at you. I’m kidding of course. Right back at you. 1. The Impossibility of an Actually Infinite Number of Things If this is true, then god (if he exists) began. In which case, Pro's argument fails. Pro says infinities can't exist. I pointed out that being different from other numbers doesn't make infinities non-existent. Imaginary numbers seem obviously impossible, but we couldn't manufacture computer chips without them. Like infinities, imaginary numbers seem to be accurate descriptions of certain aspects of reality: they seem to be true, real, existent. Pro protests that his problem isn't that infinities don't behave like finite numbers (but see his examples) but rather that they lead to actual contradictions. But: 1. Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea [2] says zero was long rejected by Europeans because it led to actual contradictions. (When you divide by zero.) Ultimately, they had to quit treating it like other numbers. 2. Without infinities, we get as many "actual contradictions" as with. If locations are finite, then there must be sizable gaps between locations. All movement becomes a series of teleportations over gaps that have size without internal locations. That's "inexplicable." I wouldn’t expect physicists to hold that actual infinities cannot exist. Physicists don't know math? They aren't the experts at mapping math on to physical reality? It's arrogant philosophers who are never wrong? When I pointed out that Pro hasn't shown Vilenkin's opinion to be the consensus of experts, he waved away consensus as possibly wrong. If even a consensus of experts may be wrong, how much more likely is it that Pro's cherry-picked expert is wrong? My opponent claims that if something doesn’t exist in space and time, it doesn’t exist. He gives no argument for this assertion. I'm responding to Pro's claim that things can exist nowhere and nowhen. He can't prove that, but it's vital to his case, so he's trying to shift the burden of proof. It is obvious, self evident, that if something never existed at any time or at any place, then it never existed. Pro wants us to accept all kinds of wild claims without evidence (eg: unembodied minds) but objects when I say something patently obvious. Indeed, his claim assumes that atheism is true, and therefore begs the question! The KCA's god was created specifically for the KCA. Refuting the KCA doesn't refute other Christian gods. My statement, “any universe which is on average in a state of comic expansion cannot be past-eternal” was not a quote from William Lane Craig. It was a summary of the BVG Theorem. Note that if WLC didn't originate that phrasing then he gave his source. Pro didn't. Pro also stole this phrasing: "If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful." [1] Pro didn't write those. He copied another's work without attribution. Instead of saying, "Oops, I'll try not to do that again," he's defending plagiarism. Voters, he needs feedback on this. Plagiarism is "When you copy the exact words or a unique phrase." [3] It is, "using … the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author." [4][emphasis added] "Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s ideas or language without acknowledging that they were not created by you." [5] Conclusion: Pro's argument has five steps. He undertook to prove each and every step. If even one step is unproven, then the argument fails. For reasons made clear above, none of the premises (steps 1, 2, and 3) were proven. Pro's argument depends entirely on his proving each of these three premises. He can't. His argument fails. Plagiarism: He is guilty, caught, and unrepentant. Vote Con. − [1] Reasonable Faith: http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] by Charles Seife [3] OWL: Purdue Online Writing Lab: "Is It Plagiarism Yet?" http://owl.english.purdue.edu... [4] Dictionary.com: "Plagiarism" [5] MIT's "Writing and Humanistic Studies: "Avoiding Plagiarism." http://writing.mit.edu... [6] University of Oregon: "Copenhagen Interpretation." http://abyss.uoregon.edu...