A quick recap here on the Kalam argument.
This is the last post that I am making on this subject. We are going around in circles so I am beginning to not enjoy it so much
Let's set some parameters.
1. There is no such thing as nothing in our universe. Where ever we look we will find something whether it be quantum sub-automic particles or standard elements.
2. The standard cosmological model has successfully determined that there was a singularity that was inconceivable dense and dimensionally microscopic.
3. The Big Bang is a excepted event that took place 13.7 billion years ago.
4. The word
"create" is defined in several dictionaries as "bringing into existence", therefore, for clarity, we can replace "begins to exist" with created, as follows. Everything that is created has a cause.
5. Cause is defined as
cause
1. a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. "the cause of the accident is not clear"
synonyms: source, root, origin, beginning(s),
starting point, seed, germ,
genesis, agency, occasion; mainspring, base, basis,
foundation, bottom, seat; originator, author,
creator, producer, agent, prime mover, maker;
fons et origo; literaryfountainhead, wellspring, fount, begetter; rareradix
6. Everything is defined as
everything
1. all things. "they did everything together"
synonyms: each item, each thing, every article,
every single thing, the lot, the whole lot,
the entirety, the total, the aggregate; all;
7. Everything includes the universe, a chair, a tree, a car, a human being. Everything that exists.
8. It is a possible that cause and effect can occur simultaneously at t=0 at which time the laws of the universe would have began to exist, including cause and effect.
9. Element cannot be created or destroyed. It is eternal in nature and would have existed within the singularity as dense element.
10. Ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy as "nothing" does not exist. Ex-materia is witnessed everywhere in the universe
11. A chair is created from elements that have always existed.
12. The big bang created the universe from something, the singularity.
In addition, it is very likely that because quantum sub-automic particles are not effected by time or distance it is conceivable that it existed pre-BB this is essential as it means that "nothing" cannot exist in our universe or in the pre-BB either. Something exists everywhere.
1. Everything that is created has a cause.
(a) Everything is defined as all things that exist, as in parameter 6.
(b) Create is to bring into existence, as in parameter 4.
(c) Cause is the Genesis of effect, as in parameter 5.
A chair is part of everything. It was created by using element that has always existed. It was caused to exist by the chair maker. All parameters have been met, therefore, the premise is correct. It is as simple as that.
2. The universe began to exist.
Where there was a singularity there is now a universe. It began to exist after the Big Bang.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Self explanatory. No logical fallacies or philosophies to argue over. Just simple common sense.
When theists speak of “evidence of God” invariably this argument is cited. And I’m slightly at a loss to know why but I suspect it’s because it is naïvely plausible, initially. The Kalam has been made popular by a modern advocate of the argument, William Lane Craig, who begins his debates with cosmological arguments, which I believe folk are watching on Youtube or similar. Although to be fair to him he doesn’t claim it to be beyond dispute. His purpose in using it is, in part, to defeat those sceptics who argue for an eternal universe or “multiverse” theories, and after quoting the Borde, Guth, and Valenkin, Past-Finite Universe study, he quickly moves away form the argument’s premises and on to the “infinity problem”.
KCA is not beyond dispute but it is not false either.
But make no mistake, the argument is unsound!
And that remark only means that we will continue going around in circles. Debate is therefore futile.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
The universe has a cause
The following demonstrates why the Kalam argument is unsound.
And that remark only means that we will continue going around in circles. Debate is therefore futile.
The primary premise contains an omission in what it sweepingly asserts. It can’t be said that anything or everything that begins to exist has a cause for that would be begging the question, because that is what the argument is supposed to prove in the case of the universe as a whole. Inferences can only be made from what actually exists.
Nothing in our universe comes into existence uncaused. Even in Quantum mechanics just because we do not see a cause does not mean there isn't one. The Higgs boson could not be seen or found but the effect was there. The same principle may apply. No one knows. We have no reason to believe that and effect could be uncaused. There is no presidents for it, indeed, it goes against known natural laws that came into being at the same time as the big bang was caused. It is a supernatural effect as nowhere in nature can it be found.
So I’ve inserted the missing clause into the argument:
P1. Whatever begins to exist in the universe has a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause
If you want to write it like this then fine. I am not objecting as it means the same thing.
Even with the inserted clause the primary premise (P1) is false. We don’t observe objects beginning to exist; we only see material objects that change their form. In all cases the new objects are formed from pre-existent matter. There is still the same amount of matter in the universe as there was prior to our observing the new object. The objects cannot therefore be described as beginning to exist in the way the argument misleadingly implies.
We observe objects coming into existence everyday, especially in the manufacturing industry. All that exists comes from element, element is eternal in nature. The manufacturering industry use elements everyday to make worldly goods, that we don't really need, as much as we want. From element a car in created ex-materia.
The argument of the amount of matter remaining constant is a non sequitur. If it were to change every time that something is created then the creation must needs be from nothing. As it is fromIt existing element the universal matter content will remain constant. The matter contained on earth did not increase when I was borne because I have been created, like Adam and Eve, from the dust of the ground, element. I do not see how you can dispute that. Everything is created by element and element has always existed. The creation comes when element is used to construct, in the physical world, or to build, in the natural world.
