kbertshe writes:
Perhaps, but we need to be careful how we define both "causation" and "event". If you define "event" broadly enough to include a "state of being", I would agree.
I'm not using any specialized terminology or trying to draw fine distinctions. I hope I'm just using the everyday meaning of words.
Using the wording from the opening post, Premise 2 of Syllogism 2, the Kalam Cosmological Argument assumes that "Everything that happens/starts has a cause." This isn't the only way to state this premise. Wikipedia gives both a classical formulation ("Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence") and a contemporary ("Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause").
People intuit this premise from observation, for example, of a pea plant or a volcano or a house being created. But all these observations are only of existing matter being reshaped and reorganized. No matter is actually being brought into existence. It's just existing matter being reconfigured. Nothing is actually being poofed into existence.
To elaborate, no one says, or at least no biologist says, that a pea plant is created because of the nature of seeds, earth and water. Biologists know to a fairly good level of detail the chain of cause and effect events that give rise to a pea pod.
And no one says, or at least no geologist says, that a volcano arises because of the nature of planets. Geologists know to a fairly good level of detail the chain of cause and effect events that give rise to a volcano.
And no one says, or at least no homebuilder says, that a house arises because of the nature of lumber and nails. Homebuilders know to an excellent level of detail the precise chain of cause and effect events that give rise to a house.
You cannot begin with examples of creation that come about through the mere movement of matter around into different shapes and combinations to extrapolate to the creation of matter itself in the form of atomic particles. There is no proximal cause of atomic decay that we know of. Saying that it is the nature of some atomic nuclei to decay is just another way of saying you don't know why a particular atomic nuclei decayed when it did. The Contemporary form of the Kalam argument uses the term "external cause", and there is certainly no "external cause" for atomic decay.
The same is true of virtual particles. Saying they are caused by the nature of space/time is a non-answer, and there is certainly no "external cause."
--Percy