The Kalam Cosmological Argument

So, just to be clear, my opponent is the one that actually does believe horses can - and indeed have - actually “popped” into existence at the behest of an imagined cosmic magician. He believes this not only absent any empirical evidence, but in direct opposition of all scientific evidence to the contrary. Here, my opponent assumes that empirical methods are the only way we can establish truth value, which not only begs the question in favor of naturalism, but is also demonstrably false. Yet he criticizes quantum mechanics which provides verifiable evidence that virtual particles are the only thing known to actually pop into existence. Do not be misdirected - there are not over 10 different interpretations that the Casimir effect itself has been observed– an effect which has been predicted since 1948 and empirically measured for the first time in 1996. [1] I’d like for my opponent to answer the question that was posed to him, which is: What is it about quantum mechanics that will allow for only virtual particles to pop in to existence and not anything else? My statement which stands… We have no evidence for anything [other than virtual particles] just popping into existence (such as horses) within our universe. I will repeat: The state of “nothingness” doesn’t have any pre-determinstic conditions that will allow for only particles to pop in to being and nothing else. But why just particles? And notice he said “within our universe”. Well, if such phenomenon occurs within our universe, then it can’t be used to explain the origins of our universe, since no entity can be used to explain the origins of its own domain. In other words, yes we are limited to observations within our universe, but if a multiverse indeed does exist, scientists can test predictions of how such external forces might have pulled and shaped our own universe during cosmic inflation and/or how those external forces might continue to interact and be detectable today. My opponent is once again appealing to a multiverse scenario, which the BGV theorem that I mentioned previously would apply to as well. The multiverse theory is not an exception to the one condition of the BGV theorem, which is that any universe that has been expanding for an average Hubble expansion rate of greater than 0, it must have had a beginning. Second, if the multiverse theory is true, and it has existed for eternity, why would our universe begin to exist only 13.7 billion years ago? If the conditions needed for it to originated existed for eternity, why would it begin a finite time ago? Why not sooner. Why not later? Remember, my opponent argued for the actual existence of singularities. I was offering one refutation of his assertion. Other physicists hypothesize black holes form a quantum bridge between universes absent singularities or imaginary time. [19] While singularities may be proven one day to actually exist, right now the trend amongst cosmologists seems to be against their reality. But my opponent who argued for actual singularities was in fact addressing an actual infinity (infinite density), at the same time arguing that actual infinities couldn’t exist. A logical contradiction. First off, when we say "infinite density" it is a figure of speech to describe the state of all space and matter existing at one single point. There isn't even an infinite amount of matter/space in the universe, so of course If all STEM existed in a singularity, it wouldn't be an actual infinite amount. Second, I was arguing in favor of the Standard Big Bang model, which is a model that has more empirical evidence supporting it than any model that my opponent appealed to thus far. In this model, a singularity is required. Now, if my opponent argues against this singularity, fine, but then he would in turn have to make a counter-argument which favors another model, which he has tried but unfortunately all known plausible models meet the required condition an absolute beginning as laid out in the BGV theorem. When you eliminate “Time”, you eliminate “before”. He literally cannot grasp this. Just saying the word “timelessness” is meaningless if you cannot explain how one event (God existing before creating the universe) preceding another event (God creates the universe) is not itself a function of time. He also postulates God creating the universe at a particular ‘exact moment’ (again requiring Time). There are no ‘moments’ without time. Absent time, all events would happen simultaneously in no order. In this event, both God and the universe would share the same beginning at the same initial instant. My opponent completely ignored my distinction between two concepts: chronically “before”, and causally “before”. I specifically stated and granted the fact that there wasn’t a chronically “before” time, but there was a causal “before”. If a man was sitting perfectly still in a chair for eternity, he is in a “timeless” state. Time simply doesn’t exist. If the man began to stand, then this action would initiate time, and while there was no “chronical” before (moments which lead to him standing), there was a causal “before” (his existence preceded the change). My opponent hasn’t really addressed how good Christians can live in an actual infinite heaven for all eternity with an actual eternal God that created and preexisted heaven for all of eternity and still somehow argue that actual infinities cannot be real. It appears that my opponent is once again failing to distinguish between the two types of infinity: actual infinity/potential infinity. The case is being made against an actual infinity, not a potential infinity. My opponent offers another straw man when he says I have “falsely concluded that an infinite set of events have been traversed…” In actuality, I have concluded nothing and believe the jury is still out. Here, my opponent doesn’t seem to understand the significance of postulating an eternal universe that has existed infinitely in time. If the universe is past eternal, then for every event X that has come to pass, there was an infinite number of events which preceded it, which means that in order for any event X to come to pass, infinity would have to have been traversed. It is possible that actual infinities exist, it is possible they don’t. If actual infinites do exist, then my opponent would have to believe that actual infinites can be traversed, which is exactly the kind of absurdity that I am arguing against. Just like human parents preexist their offspring and have a different temporal frame of reference from their children. I do not claim this is how our universe evolved for fact, I offer it merely to propose how such a thing might be possible that time could seem to have a beginning for one (the child’s perspective), while still preexisting before (the parent’s perspective). If my opponent imagined that there was an infinite number of births which preceded his birth, I’d like for him to explain to me how his birth could come to past? For every single birth which preceded his birth, there would be an infinite number to go before his birth is reached, so he would never be any close to birth. This is the kind of absurdity which would result if time is actually infinite. As for moving goal posts, the bible not only does not mention or explain the big bang or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, there is no explicit explanation of micro-organisms, covalent or ionic bonding, gravity, plate tectonics, radio waves, DNA, wave-particle duality, galaxies, virtual particles, general relativity, quantum tunneling, etc. The Bible teaches us that life came from life, consciousness came from consciousness, and the universe came from an external cause. Thus far, science hasn’t been able to empirically explain/demonstrate the origins of consciousness and life from pre-existent matter, and I don’t think it ever will. Indeed, as my opponent points out, the bible is obviously NOT a science book. My response: So quit treating it like one! Who is treating the Bible like a science book? I merely stated that the Bible, of all books, supports P2 of the argument, which is that the “universe began to exist”. If you really want to know how something works, actually read a science book. I’d like to know how can life originate from non-living material, and I opened up many science books and nothing I read was able to explain how that “worked”. They can actually explain the process for how they know what they know. Can they explain the origins of life, consciousness, and the universe? Finally, even if God were to actually exist, he’s not to be found in faulty syllogisms like the KCA. We can only truly know of God’s objective existence if we can test God empirically. Fallacious reasoning. Again, my opponent is assuming that science is the “begin all / end all” to all knowledge, which is a non-sequitur. This is fallacious, since the truth value or “We can only truly know of God’s objective existence if we can test God empirically” ßbut the truth value of this statement cannot be tested empirically. But God has not been detected by any objective, modern means inside our universe. And nothing inside our universe can be used to explain the absolute origins of anything within our universe. Every place we have searched, from the largest scales to the smallest, he’s simply nowhere to be found. God is absent. Imaginary. Illusory. An absent God is superfluous to any conjecture, indistinguishable from the non-existent, and therefore can be summarily dismissed. "Every place we have searched”? I’d like to ask my opponent has he looked everywhere. Suppose God is behind the sun, has my opponent looked behind the sun? A finite, limited human being is making semi-absolute statements…my opponent doesn’t even know if aliens exist, and they exist within space-time, so how can he rule out God when he has such limited knowledge, presence, and power?