The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Premise 1 -- everything that begins to exist has a cause. Con is simply incorrect when he says the premise is not self-evidence. All the experience we have in the world tells us that things that begin to exist has a cause. Beginning to exist is an effect, and the nature of effects are that they have causes. It seems there would be no need for science itself if it were not self-evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause, since the job of science is to find answers to our questions about the universe. So let's take a look at Con's arguments.1a. A Priori SupportIf we want to get really philosophical, there are actually four types of causes, as formulated by Aristotle: The material cause (which is what something is made out of), the fomal cause (which is the shape a thing is formed into), the efficient cause (which is the agent or thing that forms the object), and the final cause (which is the purpose being served by it). [1] So when a Theist argues for the KCA, we argue that the cause, in particular, is an efficient cause. Which means that Con's discussion of necessary vs. sufficient causation, while interesting, is ultimately an equivocation on the word "cause. "Second, Con's discussion about something coming from something else adds nothing to his argument. Nothing is literally "no thing. " It does not exist. So even if something could come from something uncaused (which is still a very dubious claim, since if something comes from something, it's being caused by, at least, a material cause), the nature of nothing makes it impossible that something could come from it uncaused. Third, Con's argument about the paper and the uncaused dent also adds nothing to his argument. I think it's very dubious that there really is a possible world in which something comes from something else uncaused, but let's assume for a moment that it is possible. This still proves nothing about the actual world. Con must show how, in the actual world, something can come from nothing (or something) uncaused. One could simply add a qualifier to the first premise: in the actual world, everything that begins to exist has a cause and we'd be back in the ball game. In fact, Alexander Pruss would argue that Con's claim that he can imagine a dent occurring in a piece of paper without a cause is, in fact, false. The claim is not that Con is lying, but that there are certain details inherent in the situation that Con is possibly not even aware of. Pruss writes,". .. we can imagine a brick coming into existence in the absence of a brickmaker, a brick not resulting from the baking of clay, a brick not made by an angel, demon or ghost. But that is not the same thing as imagining a brick that comes into existence completely causelessly. To imagine that, we would need to imagine every possible kind of cause—including the unimaginable ones—as absent. That seems to be a feat beyond our abilities. We can, of course, say the words 'This is causeless' both with our lips and with our minds while imagining the brick, but the claim that whenever one can imagine an F and say of it, with lips or minds, that it is a G, then possibly there is an F that is a G, would not only be highly defeasible, but would surely be a non-starter. I can imagine a circle and say the words “This is a square” while imagining it. " [2]Finally, the dent is not an example of a thing coming into existence. Surely the dent is a part of the paper? If I bend my arm, do I bring the bend in my arm into existence? That's just a facon de parler: what's actually happening is that I cause my arm to be bent. But this is general event causation, not causation of existence, which is what the KCA is concerned with. [3]1b. A Posteriori SupportThis, again, does not support Con's argument. If we have support at the macro level, this gives us evidence for the same at the micro level. Con must support his argument, not simply assert it. It's also worth pointing out that Con only addressed my third point from my opening argument, leaving my first two points uncontested. So I extend them into the next round. Premise 1 remains affirmed. Premise 2 -- the universe began to exist. If the B-Theory of time is true is a very big "if. " Con's quote by Dean Zimmerman is nothing but an Argumentum ad Populum fallacy and should be ignored. The majority can still be wrong. Also, Con has read too much into the quote, as the quote says nothing about which theory has more evidence to support it, only that the majority accept a B-theory of time. For all we know, they accept the B-theory of time to avoid the Thestic implications inherent in the Big Bang. Con's use of my alleged argument has been ripped out of context, and is nothing but a personal attack. It should be disregarded, especially as what matters is this argument, not what I may or may not have stated in the past. Doctor Craig may disagree that the KCA works on the B-Theory of time, but again, Doctor Craig may be wrong about this. I exist now because my parents conceived me in December of 1980. I would not exist now if they hadn't. Similarly, even if time exists tenselessly, the universe would still require a cause as to how it exists now. I don't see how the B-Theory of time would refute this, since I began to exist and would not now exist if I had not begun to exist. If we interpret "beginning to exist" phenomenologically (that is, on one B-theoretic view, something begins to exist when it's worldline starts), then the intuitive warrant and the arguments for the first premise remain. For the second premise, the argument from the impossibility of actual infinities stays and the scientific arguments stay. [5]I think we can safely disregard pretty much all of Con's argument in support of the B-Theory of time, since all he does is assert these things and give sources to back them up (and of course, there may be detractors who give reasoned arguments as to why these positions fail). It's not my job to go through Con's sources and pick out the arguments, Con, himself, must argue these points (which would also demonstrate that Con has understanding of these issues and is not simply asserting them as an appeal to authority mixed with an Argumentum ad Populum. Con has not addressed my argument against actual inifinities. If that argument succeeds, then the argument for B-Theory can safely be rejected (or, if possible, brought in line with the KCA). Time cannot have infinitely existed so therefore, the universe had a beginning. Besides, the B-Theory of Time leads to absurdities. I'm low on space, so I'll get into the absurdities later. One of these absurdities includes the Grim Reaper Paradox (which I'll tease now but go into detail in my next argument). [5]At any rate, considering that Con has not addressed my argument against an actual infinity of time, this premise stands affirmed. Conclusion -- Therefore, the universe has a cause. The argument has not been successfully rebutted, so the conclusion stands. [1] Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 5, Section 1013a. [2] . https://bearspace.baylor.edu...[3] [4] I owe my friend, Roland Elliott, for these observations. [5] . http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com...