God exists as per the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)

What if we were to change the wording of the argument in order to remove the supernatural?1...Anything that begins to exist has a natural cause for its existence.2... The universe began to exist.3... Therefore the universe had a natural cause to exist.Are we still dealing with a false premise, or simply an unknown (at this time) cause?I realize that Subbie demonstrated that part one is false because of quantum fluctuations; however there still could be an unknown cause for vacuum density fluctuations. Part two of the argument is, for me, the hardest part to address, since time and space is so intricately dependant on one another .

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Hello RCH, I agree it is an assumption. However, so is the initial argument. The argument assumes everything that begins has a cause. Vacuum density fluctuations would seem to be counterintuitive to this assumption. Though I will grant you that, quantum fluctuations may indeed have a cause that is merely unknown at this time. Not only that but, by re-wording your argument to include natural cause's all you have to do to prove it false is to provide one event that has a supernatural cause. A daunting task indeed, I believe.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Hello RCH, While physics may be a favored past time of mine, I am no expert. So I must differ to some of our expert posters in this field. I believe at this time there are many unexplained aspects of the quantum world. However I agree with the idea that, they do have a cause, which may be merely unknown at this point. I disagree; I believe it strengthens the argument. It may destroy the ability to inject a supernatural cause for the answer. However considering that all past arguments for natural processes, once favored God/s as the answer. Those were shown to be incorrect. I believe that this will eventually be the case for this very same argument. The problem is that the answer ends up with either.
1. The argument having to apply to the cause. i.e. if God is the cause, then what caused God? Or as Huntard says, turtles all the way down. Or,
2. Special pleading, on the unknowns of a supernatural entity. You have to inject unknowns on the ability of an unknown entity. Which if we were to be totally honest, we could just apply to the conditions of the universe, and that would be a valid answer to the argument as well.
These are the only two answers I continue to come up with, to the outcome of the argument. However if we insert that there may be valid natural causes to the beginning of the universe. Then the answer is. We simply do not know what caused the universe to unfold. The problem I see with this. Is that the KCA does not naturally point to a supernatural entity. That is merely your favored answer to the argument. However, with that answer you run into the problems that I brought up earlier.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

Is this concept, what is illustrated by the arrow of time being a pole running through a globe like structure produced by imaginary time?

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX