Kalam Cosmological Argument Science

The first step is determining if the premises infer the conclusion. In this deductive argument, the answer is yes. However, this does not mean the argument is sound; the premises must be valid. The premises need to be more probable than their detractors to be valid. Detractors are possible other pieces of information. 

The first premise is valid intuitively. A detractor may be that sometimes things pop into existence without a cause, or a universe can pop into existence without a cause. Well, how about this story? Coming home from work, I found a large hippopotamus in my living room. Why not? The hippo is not nearly as large or as complicated as the universe- so don't be hippo-critical. Why can't a hippo just pop in the living room if an entire complicated universe can pop into existence? Is a hippo on one leg really called a hoppo?

I better get prepared: a snow shovel, a fifty-five-gallon barrel, ten containers of "Nature's Miracle Urine Remover, "ten bottles of Fabreeze, additional chlorine for the pool, and five gallons of "Resolve,"  Gotta keep the heat up. Don't want it to get hippothermia. Some of this is hippothetical, but it's easier to believe than a universe coming into existence for no reason.

The second Law of dynamics is true for me. I'm "breaking down," gravity makes me feel older, and I'm running out of energy. This isn't just happening to me. Everything I see tends to deteriorate over time. The universe is not an exception; it loses usable energy as it expands. Eventually, it dies of "heat death," and I don't know anyone who disagrees. Premise 2 is valid.

The second Law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws of nature. In a closed system such as the universe, things move from order to non-order. Also, heat moves from hotter to cooler areas. Eventually, the universe falls into disorder and ends in heat death. This is not debatable; our universe will end. Had the universe always existed, it would have died a heat death a long time ago. 

Supporting evidence from the second video on this page

• Einstein's theory of relativity was needed to explain the Big Bang.
• George Lematrie used Einstein's equations to support a beginning universe.
• Using his telescope, Edward Hubble noted a red light shift from distant stars, and then even Einstein agreed the universe had a beginning.
• The discovery of the cosmic radiation background.
• The second Law of thermodynamics.
• Borde-Guth- Valenkin Theorem. (BGV) This theorem of what cosmological model is used indicates a beginning, including a mult-verse. 
• The absurdity of an actual infinity

To show the KCA is not sound, O needs a detractor to replace premise 2

Objection: "Craig likes to invoke authority a lot by appealing to scientists and experts, unsurprisingly, to establish his claims. Except he cherry-picks his experts and, worse, cherry-picks the claims of his experts. And his experts disagree with him." 

Response: This is an ad hominem fallacy. It is an attack on the man, not the argument. Einstein, Friedman, LeMatrie, Hubble, Borde, Guth, and Velinkin. are the experts used. If that is cherry picking, those are some sweet cherries.

Objection:  Craig denies animal suffering.

Response: This is an ad hominem fallacy and poisoning the well. The objection is unrelated to the argument, and the objector is writing everything they can think of, even if it is irrelevant to the argument.

Objection: Mathematicians accept infinities, but Craig does not. Craig claims the infinite past is incoherent, but the infinite future is embraced. 

Response: This is gibberish. It states Craig does not accept infinities and then says he does. Hopefully, this quote from the book On Guard by WLC will clear up the confusion. 

 "the series of past events, Ghazali observes, has been formed by adding one event after another. "The series of past events is like a sequence of dominoes falling one after another, and the last domino, today, is reached. But, he argues, no series formed by adding one member after another can be an actual infinity, for you cannot pass transcend an infinite number of elements one at a time. An actual infinity refers to an endless number of things or integers that do not exist in reality.

  Potential infinity: something that tends toward infinity, such as integers. A series of integers starting at the number 1 and adding 1 is a potential infinite, but it never reaches an actual infinite because you can always add one more. For example, 1+1=2, 2+1 =3, 3+1=4. Obviously, the process moves toward infinity but never reaches it.

Objection 1. "The KCA is based on outdated views of mathematics, claiming infinity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction.

Response: Wow, mathematics doesn't become outdated. Potential infinity and actual infinity are indeed different, but there are no contradictions.

Objection: Some people swear the universe has existed forever. 

Response: If the universe had always existed, we would never have reached today. Think of trying to jump out of a bottomless pit; even if you have some success with each jump, you never get out, no matter how many times you jump.

Objection: Science no longer believes in a singularity.

Response: Singularity is a mathematical idealization; it is not a physical state that exists. The mathematical space would be zero if the universe's expansion could be reversed. What, then, is density? Since division by zero makes no sense, the density divided by zero is infinite. 

Objection: "Craig relies on understandings of time (A-Theory) that don't appear to hold with theories of relativity. He also special pleads a neo-Lorentzian theory of physics that is fringe and not really believed by anyone (and allows for faster-than-light travel). This is to get him an absolute time frame, as opposed to relativistic time, not because the evidence points that way, but because he needs it for his KCA argument."

Response: I'm rather fond of the A-theory of time myself. In A-theory, we have past, present, and future. The B-theory of time refers to a tenseless universe without past, present, or future. In this theory, tense is an illusion. Why celebrate multiple birthdays when they all occur at the same time?

According to the new Lorentzian theory, "not really believed by anyone" is a self-defeating statement. Craig is one person, and Einstein used it for his theories.

Objection: It is possible that some things come into existence without a cause.

Response: No. 

Objection: things do come into existence in quantum physics.

Response: Sub-atomic particles come into existence momentarily from energy in a vacuum. Energy is not nothing.  

Objection: Craig believes the neo-Lorentzian theory, which is not really believed by anyone.

Response: It is a self-defeating statement. Perhaps O can travel faster than light, but it has nothing to do with the neo-Lorentzian theory of physics.

Objection:  We don't know anything about the universe before Plank time.

Response: This is just wrong. Plank time refers to the first trillionth, of a trillionth, of a trillionth of a second. We do know the expansion of the universe was extremely rapid, the entropy was very low, and the temperature was extremely hot. 

Objection:.The Hebrew word "Bereshit can mean in the beginning. Therefore, Genesis words in the beginning may refer to a multiverse with numerous universes coming into existence.

Response: there was no Hebrew word for universe, much less a multiverse,

Objection:  if God created the universe, he is not eternal. He is trapped in time as we are and, therefore, not eternal. 

Response: Time did not exist before the Big Bang; it came into existence at the time of the Big Bang. God still transcends time.

. 

Objection:  The Kalam cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, the argument is an example of circular logic.

Response: The form of the argument is a modus ponens. In the form:

p implies q 

q

therefor q

If one's only reason for believing in a premise is that one already believes in the conclusion, then it is circular reasoning. The reason for premise 1 is based on intuitive knowledge and philosophical arguments.

Objection: The universe does not need a beginning; we can only trace back to the Big Bang. 

Response: Indeed, science cannot be traced back to before the Big Bang, but mathematically, time, space, and matter did not exist. Therefore, the reason is based on something immaterial, exceedingly powerful, like God.

Objection: It doesn't prove the Christian God.

Response: It doesn't prove God, but it certainly describes a very powerful entity or being that can create and is not constrained by time or space. It is immaterial and powerful. This sounds like God to me.