The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
The Kalam Argument is logically sound.
in Religion
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
The argument itself is sound. The conclusions from it in the article, however, are not.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
However in the last couple of decades it's become totally irrelevant. Although the link in the OP mentions quantum theory, it makes no mention of general relativity which is what is actually key. As per general relativity, space and time are linked. So when you get to the big bang and all of existence being a single micro-singularity not only is there no real space for the universe to exist in there is no time either for there to be causality.
To quote Stephen Hawking From A Brief History of Time:
“The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself. … Time itself must come to a stop. You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in. For me this means there is no possibility of a creator because there is no time for a creator to have existed. Since time itself began at the moment of the Big Bang, it was an event that could not have been caused or created by anyone or anything."
This shows that the initial premise the argument relies upon is actually false and the theory can therefore be disregarded.
While the Kalam cosmological argument is only inductive logic, a hundred years ago the reasoning of "In every single moment of human history causality has applied, therefore causality will apply to the creation of the universe" made a certain intuitive sense and I can understand why people thought it was relevant. Of course this was regardless of the logical hole that they're applying a set of rules that apply in one situation (a universe exists) to another situation where you have no idea if those same rules will apply (the universe doesn't exist". It's like saying "Water boils at 100 degrees CC every single time I boil it, therefore all water everywhere boils at 100 degrees C" and being ignorant of the fact that water only boils at that temperature in Earth's standard atmospheric pressure. Just like someone who has never tried to boil water outside of Earth's atmosphere and doesn't have the scientific knowledge to analyse the situation would be making a reasonable but false claim, the same applies to someone who has never experienced causality outside of the existence of the universe but imagines it will be the same. It's understandable that people made that error back in the day but even then it was wrong. Now we have no excuse and the Kalam cosmological argument can be discarded entirely.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.64  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra