This is the third and final round of Destroying the Kalam Cosmological Argument!!!!! Tim Stratton has responded to four arguments in round 1 and four in round 2, surviving by the skin of his teeth. But here are four last objections that will own him for sure!!!
Final round: Go!
9) Lawrence Krauss’s work has proved that the universe can come from nothing.
This is flat-out false! Krauss seems to intentionally attempt to deceive uneducated laymen by conflating absolutely no time and space (one usage of the word “nothing”) with the quantum vacuum, which is commonly thought of as “empty space,” and hence it is sometimes inappropriately referred to as “nothing.” However, this quantum vacuum is not nothing! It’s not even “empty space!” It has a physical structure and is part of the space-time universe. It is actually a “sea of roiling and violent energy governed by the laws of nature.” Does that sound like absolutely no thing to you?
Alexander Vilenkin (not a theist) has corrected his friend, Lawrence Krauss, recently. In an online science journal, Vilenkin makes it clear:
A vacuum is ordinarily thought of as empty space, but according to modern particle physics what is empty is not nothing. The vacuum is a physical object, endowed with energy density and pressure. It can be in a number of different states, or vacua. The properties and types of elementary particles differ from one vacuum to another.
10) Other cosmological models exist that avoid a beginning, nullifying the KCA.
Yes, there are many models of the universe out there that don’t postulate beginnings. However, they have all been shown to be untenable. That is to say, they have been mathematically demonstrated to be faulty. Moreover, many affirm the eternal block universe and the B-theory of time to get around the KCA. However, if atheists makes this move, they will ultimately have to reject evolution as an explanation of biological complexity of primates today. Moreover, they will have to reject the ability to reason and to possess knowledge.
Once again, I appeal to the “V” in the BGV theorem, Alexander Vilenkin (let me remind you that as an agnostic he has no theological axe to grind). Regarding all of these cosmological models, Vilenkin makes it clear:
The answer to the question, “Did the universe have a beginning?” is, “It probably did.” We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.
11) Something something something multiverse.
Well, it’s logically possible there is a multiverse, but if there is, it cannot be an infinite amount of actual universes. Now, there is a seemingly infinite amount of possible worlds (the way things could have been), but these things don’t really exist. It is important to not confuse the infinite amount of possible worlds with the idea that there is an actually infinite amount of existing worlds.
Here’s a couple of problems with the multiverse hypothesis:
1- If the multiverse is true (it seems to be scientifically unprovable by definition), it is logically impossible to have an actual infinite amount of these universes because you can always add one more. You can have a really big number, but it will always have a finite value. There is a big difference between the actual infinity and the potential infinity. An actual infinite of physical things or moments is impossible. As I explained above, a potential infinite of these worlds is possible, but this will never be reached (you can always add one more).
2- The best multiverse hypothesis is from Alan Guth. His model is based on inflationary theory. This means as universes expand, they bubble off and have “baby universes.” Then, those baby universe expand and have more baby universe and this goes on and on into the infinite future. However, based on his own mathematics (along with Borde and Vilenkin) they mathematically proved that this entire process had to start and have a “mother of all beginnings” as was said in a Guth interview.
Logically, if there is a starting point, and a universe is added to a growing number of universes, the universe is growing in number, but it will always be “countable.” It can be a very large number, but it will never reach infinity as you can — and will — add more to the list.
12) Positing God as the cause of the Big Bang is just a God-of-the-gaps argument. We don’t know what caused the Big Bang so you Christians just say it’s God.
No, we have reached this conclusion via logic and reason. Let’s examine the rational inferences based upon the deductive conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Here is a quote from one of my previous articles:
If the cause of the universe transcends space-time, then, it must have been “timeless.” This means that whatever the cause was would have had no beginning (i.e., eternal), because a beginning necessitates time to already be in existence. If the cause existed apart from time and had no beginning, we can infer logically that this cause had no cause of its own, as it logically never began to exist, and therefore, it exists necessarily.
Moreover, as the big bang was the beginning of space-time, then it follows that the cause of the universe also had to have been “spaceless.” This means that the cause would have no size or shape. It was utterly immaterial. Accordingly, the KCA takes atheistic naturalism off the table as a possible model of reality because this argument has provided evidence that a supernatural Cause of the universe exists.
What other inferences can we discover regarding the cause of the universe’s attributes and properties? Well, this cause must be enormously powerful. I can’t think of anything which requires more power than creating a universe from nothing! Moreover, the universe’s immaterial cause had to have been timeless, spaceless, and it necessarily had the power to spontaneously bring the world into existence without anything causing it to do so because then, whatever the cause of the cause was would be the cause. But since this cause exists outside of anything physical, temporal, or material, none of these things could logically cause or force this cause to do anything. Therefore, this cause has its own volition or free will. Apart from anything abstract (which are causally impotent anyway), only an unembodied mind (or soul) could logically exist “in nothingness” and transcend space-time.
Persons are the only types of things that could possibly possess immaterial minds with free will; therefore, we can decipher that the cause of the universe was personal. If it is personal, then it’s at least possible that “It” can have a personal relationship with other personal beings. Humans are personal beings. Therefore, it’s possible that humans can have a personal relationship with the cause of the universe.
I call the cause of the universe “God,” but one is free to call this cause whatever they’d like; however, “a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.” To this point I have only appealed to logic and science and have not even touched any religious book whatsoever. Be that as it may, the attributes we have drawn from the conclusion correspond perfectly with the way the Bible describes God’s properties. The KCA provides evidence of the Ultimate Mind behind the universe, which also makes perfect sense regarding immaterial minds that humans seem to have.
It’s amazing that by simply employing science, philosophy, and logic, we reach the conclusion that God exists. Moreover, we can infer that it’s possible for us to have a personal relationship with him. This is exactly what the Bible teaches too, and what we can learn through the logical study of the universe (Psalm 19:1; Romans 1:20-21).
It looks like Tim Stratton has totally wrecked twelve objections that were supposed to utterly destroy the Kalam Cosmological Argument!!!!! Well done, my friend, and thank you for playing. And check out our mutual hero, William Lane Craig, giving a similar talk in which he responds to some of these objections and more: Objections so Bad I Couldn’t Have Made Them Up.