For those who haven’t encountered it before, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a “proof” of Gods existence and goes as follows:
P1.) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2.) The universe began to exist.
C.) Therefore the universe has a cause.
While, at first glance, the KCA seems reasonable enough we quickly realize that, with any sort of consideration, the argument fails on every possible level. In the following paragraphs we will consider the logic and and the science behind this topic.
To begin with, the first problem here is, even granting the syllogism were valid, the conclusion doesn’t get you to a Creator. The KCA only gets us to a cause. While many will assert that God is that “cause” this cannot be supported because, in the absence of evidence, all Ad-Hocs are equally valid. That is to say, you cannot solve one mystery with another mystery. Nor can you explain one unknown by postulating the existence of another unknown. Saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the “first cause” is equally valid/invalid as saying any other unknown was the first cause (big foot, mini mouse, pink unicorns, etc).
The second problem is the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the first two premises. What applies to the parts of a whole does not necessarily apply to the whole itself. To explain what I mean by this consider the following statements:
All sheep in the flock have a mother - therefore the flock must have a mother.
All raindrops in the storm are pear shaped - therefore all rainstorms must be pear shaped.
This is the exact same sort of bad inductive reasoning that is going on with the KCA: All things in the universe have a cause - therefore the universe must have a cause. Principles that apply to parts of the system do not necessarily apply to the entire system itself.
However, the biggest problem with the KCA is that for a premise to support a conclusion - the premise must be known to be true. Premises cannot be hypotheticals or mere assertions. Rather, premises must be factual.
And the first premise - everything that begins to exist has a cause - is demonstrably false. With one exception, everything in our universe is the rearrangement of energy. Stars, planets, animals, cars, tables, etc. don’t “begin to exist.” Rather, matter that is already in existence is repurposed. However, the one exception is known as Quantum Fluctuations. They are, quite literally, something from nothing.
Those familiar with the First Law of Thermodynamics know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Quantum Fluctuations do NOT violate this law. Rather, when they pop into existence they always do so in equal amounts of positive and negative energy. They were first predicted in 1948 by Hendrik Casimir (see Casimir Effect) and directly measured in 1997 by Steve Lamoreaux of the Los Almos National Laboratory. And Quantum Fluctuations are one of the key factors responsible for Cosmic Inflation.
Even more interesting, is that when we measure how much energy is in our universe, accounting for all the positive and negative energy, it works out to zero. How does something come from nothing? Well zero is equal to zero. And -1+1=0. It doesn’t matter how complicated you make the equation. So long as it balances out in the end.
Lastly, is the second premise - the universe began to exist. This is not known to be true. While we often refer to the initial moments of the Big Bang as the birth of our universe we don’t what happened before that. We don’t know if space time and energy existed prior to that point of if that really was the beginning. In the absence of that knowledge, the second premise cannot be used to support a conclusion. When we don’t know the answer to something we should say “I don’t know” instead of “hey, let’s make something up.”
Anyway, hope this arms you intellectually if you ever come across the Kalam Cosmilogical Arguement. And hope you may have learened something you didn't know about our universe :)
"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."
- Carl Sagan