The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[JJoseph]

Hi all. I'm curious if any of you can refute the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence


Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.

Step 2: The Universe began to exist. 

This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.

Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.

Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.

This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?

Regards,
Joseph.

1. Virtual particles apparently begin to exist without a cause.
2. Causality is inferred from observing events in the universe, it's a fallacy of composition to assume that causality applies to the universe itself. Also, the universe may have existed eternally in some form, with the Big Bang marking a transformation, not a true beginning.
3. Due to the weakness of 1. and 2., 3 is an unjustifed conclusion.
4. If the universe has a cause, it doesn't follow from the previous steps that this cause is eternal or a person. It could be an uncaused event that triggered the formation of the universe, as in the vaccuum fluctuation hypothesis popularized by Victor Stenger.

I do think you may have a point that quantum foam has some of the attributes ascribed to God: timeless, creative, powerful, containing all information. Eternal even, since quantum foam can't not exist. Sadly, quantum foam remains hypothetical for now since we lack the means to test it.

On 1: "A virtual particle is a theoretical transient particle that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle, which allows the virtual particles to spontaneously emerge from vacuum at short time and space ranges." Wiki.

This is hardly an example of Creatio ex nihilo. Not to mention the vacuum is not an example of an absolute nothing. Among many other issues.

The key issue, Mister Agenda, here is this. If absolutel nothing ever existed, then even now absolute nothing would exist, because out of nothing, nothing comes. Therefore, it is not true that absolute nothing ever existed. But a Permanent Something, distinct from the Universe, always did.

On 2: Not at all. Causality is a Logical Proposition that is necessarily true independent of any visible observation. It is true that, moment on moment, we receive virtually innumerable confirmations of the Causality Principle. The words you're reading are an effect caused by me typing. Etc. Yet that is not the reason owing to which causality is inferred, and thus the counterargument fails.
On 4: The Cause is Eternal because it preceded the beginning of time.
The Cause is Personal because it produced a temporal effect from Eternity.

Dr. Craig has developed some of these arguments in depth. So have other Philosophers/Scientists etc interested in the God Question. God Bless.