The KCA!

[POI]

For Debate: Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument provide sound reasoning for the assertion of a 'prime mover'? If so, does it happen to say anything about what this "prime mover" could even be? If the KCA is instead not good reasoning at all, please explain why?

[POI]

I did not try to "rebut" the video...I only attempted to predict what the video was about. That's it.

Even though this would be splitting hairs, at best, you are still wrong again regardless.

I can care less what the video is about...

Right, because being the KCA is basically your lasty bastion of hope, belief preservation is key.

The KCA is rebuttal proof.

According to what or who?

The Kalam cosmological argument is considered "debunked" by many philosophers and scientists because its central premise, that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," is challenged by modern physics, particularly in the realm of quantum mechanics where certain events can occur without a clear cause, and because the argument is seen as relying on a potentially flawed concept of "nothingness" when discussing the origin of the universe; critics argue that the argument may be circular reasoning, essentially assuming the existence of a creator to explain the universe's origin.
Key points about why the Kalam is criticized:

Quantum uncertainty: Modern physics suggests that certain quantum events can happen without a clear cause, contradicting the premise that everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

Misinterpretation of "nothingness": Critics argue that the concept of "nothingness" used in the Kalam argument might not accurately reflect the state of the universe before the Big Bang, as even "nothingness" could contain quantum fluctuations.

Circular reasoning concerns: Some argue that the Kalam argument might be circular reasoning, as it relies on a causal principle that itself needs to be explained, potentially assuming the existence of a creator to explain the universe's origin.

Lack of empirical evidence: The Kalam argument is primarily based on philosophical reasoning and does not directly provide empirical evidence for the existence of a creator.

[POI]

Bringing up abiogenesis, on a KCA topic, is in the strawman neighborhood.

This is more of that intellectual dishonesty shining through. You know exactly why I brought it up, to jog your memory of my position(s).

Irrelevant tirade.

Another baseless rubberstamp.

He's got nothing, folks.

NOTHING.

More huffing... More puffing,..

[SiNcE_1985]

I did not try to "rebut" the video...I only attempted to predict what the video was about. That's it.

Even though this would be splitting hairs, at best, you are still wrong again regardless.

Sure, whatever you say.

Right, because being the KCA is basically your lasty bastion of hope, belief preservation is key.

Gotcha.

According to what or who?

The Kalam cosmological argument is considered "debunked" by many philosophers and scientists because its central premise, that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," is challenged by modern physics, particularly in the realm of quantum mechanics where certain events can occur without a clear cause, and because the argument is seen as relying on a potentially flawed concept of "nothingness" when discussing the origin of the universe; critics argue that the argument may be circular reasoning, essentially assuming the existence of a creator to explain the universe's origin.
Key points about why the Kalam is criticized:

Quantum uncertainty: Modern physics suggests that certain quantum events can happen without a clear cause, contradicting the premise that everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

Misinterpretation of "nothingness": Critics argue that the concept of "nothingness" used in the Kalam argument might not accurately reflect the state of the universe before the Big Bang, as even "nothingness" could contain quantum fluctuations.

Circular reasoning concerns: Some argue that the Kalam argument might be circular reasoning, as it relies on a causal principle that itself needs to be explained, potentially assuming the existence of a creator to explain the universe's origin.

Lack of empirical evidence: The Kalam argument is primarily based on philosophical reasoning and does not directly provide empirical evidence for the existence of a creator.

You are making this stuff up as you go along.

Let me expose what is happening here..

1. Unfortunately (for you), you obliged my suggestion of creating a thread on the KCA; a subject/debate that you wasn't (and still ain't) ready, nor prepared for....not against me, at least.

2. Usually, your responses are prompt and timely, but on this particular thread, your responses are very sparingly.

And when you do respond, the response are weak and fallacious, with very little to no counter-objection action.

3. And after you've been offering very little in terms of argumentation, benchwarmer posted a video as a reply to your post..as if the plan was to assist you..as if BW was saying, "Here, POI, watch this video and use it in your argumentation!!", and I have no doubt you watched the video.

4. Based on BW's summary of the video and without even watching the video, I knew what the video was about...based on certain key words used in BW's summary....I concluded that the video was about quantum mechanics (QM), and particularly the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.

There is a certain keyword that was used, and the word is almost always used within the context of QM.

I've been doing this a long time, so I know.

5. I shared my predictions on what the video is about, and I was told I wrong on those predictions by BW, and by you.

6. Now, lo and behold, here you are, coincidentally, appealing to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics..not too long after BW posted the video undoubtedly on the same subject, and not long after my video prediction.

7. Notice, you didn't use it at any time before the video was posted. Now all of a sudden, here you are with this newfound knowledge about quantum mechanics and how it debunks P1 of the KCA.

I find it all cringeworthy.

That nonsense aside, you failed to continue at engaging me on the topics of actual infinity and thermodynamics because you knew you couldn't win..

And now you bring up QM, at BW's assistance..a topic at which you still wouldn't win, if I engage.

But I'm not going to engage.. I've wasted enough time.

This has been a very disappointing debate, particularly because one of the participants ain't come to fight...and was basically a no show.

Unless someone shows up here with actual substance, this may be my last response on this thread.

I'll take the W and keep it moving..and I'll leave with this..

The KCA is rebuttal proof.

Because you cant rebuttal truth.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #63]

It's obvious now that you do not want to accept my actual position in this topic and would rather wish my position on 'origins' was more adversarial. But I appreciate that you think about me this much, even though much of what you stated, is wrong.

Anywho, toodles... If this is indeed your last response.

[POI]

Okay folks,

Now that the aggressive interlocutor claims to be done with this thread, I will state my current position on this topic. Which is the same position I had prior to this topic being created. I'm 50/50 between materialism/naturalism alone <vs> maybe some generic 'deism.' And I have already explained my case to this interlocutor. In the OP, I stated no assertive position -- (for or against). And in post 3, I stated why this thread was created. If I was very interested in this topic, I would have vigorously engaged one of the prior topics here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38228&start=880).

So, if atheists/deists/theists have anything to offer or add, please do so. Otherwise, as I've stated all along, I do not feel the KCA, even IF true in its two premises and conclusion, propels the argument for God very far at all. I will make a new topic, when I have more time...

Thanks all...

[benchwarmer]

Arguments to the best explanation also lead us to the conclusion that something is most probable or most likely, rather than simply what "may" be so. To that end, if you want to rephrase the above as:

1. Everything that begins to exist most likely has a cause.
2. The universe most likely began to exist

I disagree here. "Most likely" hasn't been established has it?

I fear we're talking past each other here.

As so often probably happens. Hopefully readers can at least see where we are both coming from.

The point that I'm making above is that the KCA is an argument to the best explanation. And like any argument to the best explanation, the goal of the argument is to demonstrate what is most likely the case, rather than what "may" be the case, or what is "known" with complete certainty.

My point is that "We don't know" and "the best explanation" are not really the same thing. And while I realize you are hammering on the word 'know', I'm using the word based on our current knowledge base. We as humans haven't actually determined with any certainty whether things that begin to exist must have had a cause. That is the way premise 1 is put forward.

You brought up the toaster example as a counterpoint to me questioning us knowing when anything began to exist. It will become a bit of a philosophical and technical argument about when it 'began to exist'. A toaster is made up of components which are made up of materials which are made up of atoms which as far as we understand are just a form of energy. In other words, a toaster is just a specific arrangement of energy. When did this energy begin to exist? That's the question I think we are digging for here. When did the arrangement of energy become a functioning toaster? That we can figure out, but is that really when the toaster 'began to exist'?

Now, if you don't think the KCA is successful in achieving its goal -- maybe because you don't find the scientific evidence and philosophical argumentation presented in support of the two premises compelling -- then you need merely tell us why. Trying to reword the premises just adds confusion.

I'm trying to point out the premises haven't been established and thus we end up in a 'garbage in, garbage out' situation or perhaps a kinder wording might be "we don't know with any certainty in, we can't know with any certainty out".

At the end of the day, this isn't an argument about syllogisms, it's an argument on the validity of the premises being used.

At the end of the day, everything we observe is a form of energy. We don't know where this energy came from. I'm willing to grant that. We don't know if this energy began to exist or if it has always followed what we currently observe in that it can't be created or destroyed. i.e. it may have always existed.

It's ironic you correctly point out what may have been bad form on my part, yet don't see this sleight of hand in the KCA premises.

What "sleight of hand" are you referring to?

Using the language "has a cause" which is a positive statement about something we don't really know.

What if the universe did indeed have a cause, but it wasn't "God", but just the way the energy that makes up our universe behaves? Again, we don't know and simply defining things does not, and cannot, poof something into existence.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that the KCA is making some kind of claim to absolute knowledge. It's not. We can never know with 100% certainty anything in science, history, or philosophy. And, lots of alternative hypotheses may be true. This is simply a given in any serious philosophical, scientific, or historical discourse, which is why it is not usually made explicit.

However, a careful examination of the available evidence along with rigorous philosophical inquiry can -- in theory, at least -- tell us which hypothesis is most likely true on any given question. And that is what the KCA is attempting to do. So we should deal with the argument on those terms.

Sure, so what we have to do is put the syllogism aside and determine how much merit each premise has.

I contend that we don't have enough information to call either of the premises 'the best explanation'. It's certainly 'one' explanation.

There was a time that people thought lightning came from gods. At the time it was 'the best explanation'. Nowadays we have the scientific method and are more careful (or should be) about claiming which explanation is 'best'. In other words, we let the data lead us. I don't see any data that tells us energy can be created and thus the first premise is not looking good. In fact we have observed (which I grant may be limited by our current technology) that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus I don't think premise 1 is 'best' or even 'good'. In fact, the sidebar video I posted recently shows the math points to some things not needing a cause to happen. While not directly related to the origins question, it certainly puts a dent in our 'common sense' about everything must proceed from a cause.

The point is, that as soon as one admits the premise isn't entirely solid, the rest of the argument kind of loses steam since whatever is in the premises falls out the bottom.

You could raise the same objection to any scientific or historical claim, since we don't "know" with 100% certainty anything in science or history. That's why this objection is simply not compelling to anyone but a solipsist.

As pointed out, I'm not trying to play word games with 'know', I'm trying to point out that the data we have (our knowledge base) does not really support these premises.

Sure, and when problems are found with these premises do we detail this when presenting the argument in an apologetics setting?

Who is the "we" in this question? And why are you so determined to impugn the motives of proponents of the kalam argument? What does this ad hominem attack achieve?

I'm pointing out that when apologetic arguments are presented, they often do not point out all the flaws which is what we are discussing here.

To point out these flaws (whether you think they are flaws or not) would of course not help make the argument that is trying to be made.

i.e. I would really like to make an argument that shows a god (or as you define 'God') is necessary. Here's an argument that seems to work as long as people buy in on the premises.

Okay, but, as you noted above, the law of conversation of energy concerns the total energy within a closed system. It doesn't apply to or place any constraints on what can or can't happen when the closed system is brought into being in the first place.

I think you mean "may not apply".

What I mean is that the law itself only concerns the total energy in a closed system. And so it does not by itself tell us what constraints -- if any -- might apply when the closed system was brought into being in the first place. Citing this law as a defeater to the KCA, then, is misguided.

I disagree and here's why. Let's say there is a 'God'/prime mover/etc that is doing the creating. Where does this entity exist? It must exist somewhere, or by definition it does not exist at all. Thus wherever it exists, would be the system in question.

You seem to be asking why should creating a fish tank with water and fish in it a problem for an aquarium aficionado. My argument is that the person creating this fish tank has to be in a system itself and thus likely also has to 'obey' the same laws we observe (since we have no other frame of reference to observe).

Now you could argue that this entity lives in a system where this 'law' doesn't apply. Maybe, but then we are just back to hopeful guessing, not drawing conclusions based on observation.

Is there any peer reviewed science that supports the premises in the KCA?

Sure, the scholarly literature on the KCA cites peer-reviewed scientific works, which is why I asked you if you've read that literature. To put it (overly) simply: any evidence that supports the standard Big Bang model is evidence in support of Premise 2.

How? Can you please point to a paper on the Big Bang model that states anything observed at time=0? As far as I'm aware and based on my limited reading, the model breaks down here and we have no observational data to tell us what happens there. This means it doesn't help premise 2. All it says is that our universe has expanded from some point. We can't observe anything that tells us what that point is or what happened beforehand. Perhaps you have something though and I would love to read it.

[POI]

In other words, we let the data lead us. I don't see any data that tells us energy can be created and thus the first premise is not looking good. In fact we have observed (which I grant may be limited by our current technology) that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus I don't think premise 1 is 'best' or even 'good'.

I had an exchange with 'Otseng', quite a while back, about this subject matter. I do not recall the end-result or the specifics, but if I'm not mistaken, Otseng argued that the statement is only true in a 'closed or isolated system'? And Otseng may believe our 'universe' is a closed/isolated system?

While energy cannot be created or destroyed, according to the law of conservation of energy, an open system can exchange energy with its surroundings, meaning energy can flow in or out of the system, making it not entirely "created or destroyed" within the system itself.

Open system definition: An open system allows both matter and energy to move across its boundaries, meaning energy can be transferred into or out of the system.

First Law of Thermodynamics: This law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another.

Closed system: In contrast, a closed system only allows energy to exchange with its surroundings, not matter.

Isolated system: An isolated system does not exchange any energy or matter with its surrounding

***********************************

Anywho, the overarching point is that some theists wish to rest their God argument(s) too heavily upon this philosophical proposition, in which there is still not enough information about....

[historia]

My point is that "We don't know" and "the best explanation" are not really the same thing.

Okay, but that simply tells us that the kalam cosmological argument is what it claims to be: an argument. It's not called the kalam cosmological "law" or the kalam cosmological "theorem," or what have you, it's an argument to the best explanation.

And that's why it's odd you've raised this initial objection to the KCA on the grounds that its premises aren't "established" or that the argument somehow assumes 100% certain "knowledge." That's not how arguments to the best explanation operate.

And while I realize you are hammering on the word 'know', I'm using the word based on our current knowledge base.

The reason why I'm "hammering on" about this is because this type of objection is one I often see on this forum, and it typically devolves into special pleading.

People are usually perfectly happy to make arguments to the best explanation whenever it supports their position. But when confronted with an argument that doesn't support their position, all of a sudden they retreat to "we don't know that," or that's just a "guess," and so on.

The argument typically pivots from one extreme (we can't be 100% certain) to the other extreme (therefore we have 0% certainty):

We as humans haven't actually determined with any certainty whether things that begin to exist must have had a cause.

I don't think you can possibly mean that. We don't have any certainty -- literally 0% certainty -- whether a thing that begins to exist must have had a cause?

If that were true, that would mean that there would be an equal probability that the toaster in the kitchen next to me just randomly popped into existence for no reason whatsoever as opposed to being assembled by a person. That's obviously not the case.

Look, I don't want to play "word games" any more than you do. But I fear your rhetoric is running past your philosophy at several points in your argument, and I don't know where you may just be overstating your case or where you're trying to make a precise philosophical point.

When did the arrangement of energy become a functioning toaster?

Mine was assembled in 2021.

That we can figure out, but is that really when the toaster 'began to exist'?

Yes. It's not like my toaster was sitting here when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome, right?

A toaster is made up of components which are made up of materials which are made up of atoms which as far as we understand are just a form of energy. In other words, a toaster is just a specific arrangement of energy. When did this energy begin to exist? That's the question I think we are digging for here.

You're welcome to keep digging, but that's not what the first premise is about.

On this point -- as with so many other common, popular-level objections to the KCA -- William Lane Craig is helpful:

The univocal concept of "cause" employed in premiss and conclusion alike is the concept of efficient causality, that is to say, something which produces or brings into being its effects. Whether such production involves transformation of previously existing materials or creation ex nihilo is completely incidental.

Back to your argument:

In fact we have observed (which I grant may be limited by our current technology) that energy cannot be created nor destroyed

. . . from within a closed system.

That's what the law of conservation of energy is stating -- that the total energy in a closed system remains the same -- not the much broader assertion you want to make here that energy can never be created or destroyed. And since literally no one is claiming that the cause of the universe (should there be one) could even possibly come from within the closed system of the universe itself, this appeal to the law of conservation of energy as a defeater to the KCA is, again, just misguided.

You seem to be asking why should creating a fish tank with water and fish in it a problem for an aquarium aficionado. My argument is that the person creating this fish tank has to be in a system itself and thus likely also has to 'obey' the same laws we observe (since we have no other frame of reference to observe).

That's a nice little argument to the best explanation you got there. You're even making, by way of analogy, an inference about something you can't directly observe -- potential conditions outside our visible universe -- based on things you can observe. Kinda like the KCA. But I digress.

Here's a more exact analogy to our discussion using this same example:

Let's say the fish tank holds 10 gallons of water and is full. If you are inside the fish tank, you cannot add any water, since the tank is already full. Likewise, you cannot remove any water, since there is no place inside the tank the water can be 'removed' to. Assuming for a second the tank is completely sealed so no water evaporates, the total water in the tank remains the same.

Your argument is like saying that, because we cannot add or remove any water from within the tank, no one can create water outside the tank. But that's obviously not the case, as humans have the technology to combine hydrogen and oxygen atoms to form water, and can do so outside the tank. So, too, with the law of conservation of energy: it constrains what can naturally occur from within a closed system, not what may or may not obtain outside of one.

Let's say there is a 'God'/prime mover/etc that is doing the creating. Where does this entity exist? It must exist somewhere, or by definition it does not exist at all. Thus wherever it exists, would be the system in question.

One of my rules of thumb when considering questions like this is to first replace "God" with the "multiverse" to see if the question itself makes sense, or whether it contains some unfounded assumptions: "Where does the multiverse exist? The multiverse must exist somewhere, or by definition it does not exist at all. Thus wherever the multiverse exists, would be the system in question."

I don't think it makes sense to say the multiverse exists "somewhere," as that language assumes what we're talking about is an object that resides at a particular location within space-time, and I don't think that's what anyone means by the multiverse. Nor would it make sense to say the multiverse resides within some surrounding "system," as that's not, to my knowledge, what theoretical physicists are describing with the multiverse. So much more so with God.

So, yeah, if by "exists" you mean an object that actually resides in a particular location in space-time, then neither God, the multiverse, or, indeed, the universe as a whole "exist" in that narrow sense. But I see no reason to limit existence to so narrow a definition, let alone build on that the other assumptions you are making here.

In fact, the sidebar video I posted recently shows the math points to some things not needing a cause to happen. While not directly related to the origins question, it certainly puts a dent in our 'common sense' about everything must proceed from a cause.

I'm no physicist, but my take away from the video was simply that Newtonian laws don't fully describe reality. But we already knew that, right? General relativity and quantum mechanics wouldn't be needed if Newton's formulas accounted for all of our observations.

Also, the caveat near the beginning of the video seems important to note here:

[This video] is not about whether a physical ball will really move off the top of a physical dome in the real world. In reality, you can never place a ball right at the apex without it rolling down, as you can't create the ideal conditions. And, even if you could, quantum mechanics would interfere at some point.

So, in the real world, as opposed to in theoretical mathematics, we're going to find that there is a discernible cause, even if only at the quantum level, for a ball moving.

I'm pointing out that when apologetic arguments are presented, they often do not point out all the flaws which is what we are discussing here.

To point out these flaws (whether you think they are flaws or not) would of course not help make the argument that is trying to be made.

So, in other words, people in debate forums don't bring up objections to their own arguments. Gotcha.

i.e. I would really like to make an argument that shows a god (or as you define 'God') is necessary. Here's an argument that seems to work as long as people buy in on the premises.

Or, "I would really like to make an argument about natural selection being true. Here's an argument that seems to work as long as people buy in on the premises." Or, replace "natural selection" with anything else you believe in.

Why is it in the case of proponents of the KCA you think there is something deceptive going on? Again, what is the point of this kind of ad hominem attack? I've seen this time and again from atheist critics of the KCA on this forum, and I just cannot fathom why anyone feels the need to weaken their debate position in this way.

Is there any peer reviewed science that supports the premises in the KCA?

Sure, the scholarly literature on the KCA cites peer-reviewed scientific works, which is why I asked you if you've read that literature. To put it (overly) simply: any evidence that supports the standard Big Bang model is evidence in support of Premise 2.

How?

Consider what Paul Davies has to say in "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III (1978), pg. 78:

If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunken to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of this initial singularity as the beginning of the universe.

[benchwarmer]

And while I realize you are hammering on the word 'know', I'm using the word based on our current knowledge base.

The reason why I'm "hammering on" about this is because this type of objection is one I often see on this forum, and it typically devolves into special pleading.

The irony here is definitely interesting. Special pleading is exactly where this argument usually leads as soon as someone concludes God doesn't need a cause and is eternal.

People are usually perfectly happy to make arguments to the best explanation whenever it supports their position. But when confronted with an argument that doesn't support their position, all of a sudden they retreat to "we don't know that," or that's just a "guess," and so on.

The argument typically pivots from one extreme (we can't be 100% certain) to the other extreme (therefore we have 0% certainty):

That's not what I'm doing here. I'm not looking for 100% certain. I'm looking for where our current, observable data leads. Creation of energy does not fit into our observations to this point. We have also not observed anything 'beginning to exist' when you consider that anything we can observe is made of energy and what you are considering 'beginning to exist' is merely rearrangement of preexisting energy.

This, I think, is the crux of our disagreement. You consider a toaster 'beginning to exist' based on the manufacturing stamp on the bottom. I consider it 'beginning to exist' when the energy that makes up that toaster began to exist. It became a functioning toaster based on the timestamp (assuming you didn't buy a dud of course).

We as humans haven't actually determined with any certainty whether things that begin to exist must have had a cause.

I don't think you can possibly mean that. We don't have any certainty -- literally 0% certainty -- whether a thing that begins to exist must have had a cause?

Yes, I meant that. We have been talking past each other because we are each defining 'beginning to exist' differently.

When did the arrangement of energy become a functioning toaster?

Mine was assembled in 2021.

Exactly. The energy(matter) already existed. It was merely rearranged/assembled.

That we can figure out, but is that really when the toaster 'began to exist'?

Yes.

No. See above.

It's not like my toaster was sitting here when Julius Caesar was emperor of Rome, right?

The energy that is currently making up your toaster existed then. It's not like energy was created out of nowhere to make your toaster right?

A toaster is made up of components which are made up of materials which are made up of atoms which as far as we understand are just a form of energy. In other words, a toaster is just a specific arrangement of energy. When did this energy begin to exist? That's the question I think we are digging for here.

You're welcome to keep digging, but that's not what the first premise is about.

Sure it is. We are trying to establish the meaning of 'begins to exist'. We clearly have different understanding of what this means and we have to leave it up to readers to decide which one they agree with.

On this point -- as with so many other common, popular-level objections to the KCA -- William Lane Craig is helpful:

While I find him to be a formidable debater, I rarely find him helpful, but that's just my opinion.

The univocal concept of "cause" employed in premiss and conclusion alike is the concept of efficient causality, that is to say, something which produces or brings into being its effects. Whether such production involves transformation of previously existing materials or creation ex nihilo is completely incidental.

Not helpful in my opinion since it's not 'cause' that's in question, but "begins to exist" which is important. What is the thing that ties premise 1 to premise 2 such that the syllogism makes sense?

Back to your argument:

In fact we have observed (which I grant may be limited by our current technology) that energy cannot be created nor destroyed

. . . from within a closed system.

That's what the law of conservation of energy is stating -- that the total energy in a closed system remains the same -- not the much broader assertion you want to make here that energy can never be created or destroyed. And since literally no one is claiming that the cause of the universe (should there be one) could even possibly come from within the closed system of the universe itself, this appeal to the law of conservation of energy as a defeater to the KCA is, again, just misguided.

You have missed my point.

Let's grant for a moment there is a prime mover and this is what 'created' our universe. Does this prime mover exist? If yes, it must exist somewhere. Wherever this is we can only guess, but wherever it might be I would assume is in it's own 'system'. You are arguing (I think) that it is freely able to do something in that system that seems impossible in ours.

Here's a more exact analogy to our discussion using this same example:

Let's say the fish tank holds 10 gallons of water and is full. If you are inside the fish tank, you cannot add any water, since the tank is already full. Likewise, you cannot remove any water, since there is no place inside the tank the water can be 'removed' to. Assuming for a second the tank is completely sealed so no water evaporates, the total water in the tank remains the same.

Your argument is like saying that, because we cannot add or remove any water from within the tank, no one can create water outside the tank. But that's obviously not the case, as humans have the technology to combine hydrogen and oxygen atoms to form water, and can do so outside the tank. So, too, with the law of conservation of energy: it constrains what can naturally occur from within a closed system, not what may or may not obtain outside of one.

Ok, so what you are admitting here then (using this analogy) is that the 'prime mover' is not really creating anything, but simply rearranging some preexisting energy.

i.e. when we 'create' water, we are not creating the energy, we are just 'rearranging' existing energy into another state. The oxygen and hydrogen didn't poof out of nowhere. In my argument, the water is not 'beginning to exist'. The energy that makes up the water was always there. Before it was called oxygen and hydrogen, now it's called water.

Let's say there is a 'God'/prime mover/etc that is doing the creating. Where does this entity exist? It must exist somewhere, or by definition it does not exist at all. Thus wherever it exists, would be the system in question.

One of my rules of thumb when considering questions like this is to first replace "God" with the "multiverse" to see if the question itself makes sense, or whether it contains some unfounded assumptions: "Where does the multiverse exist? The multiverse must exist somewhere, or by definition it does not exist at all. Thus wherever the multiverse exists, would be the system in question."

I don't think it makes sense to say the multiverse exists "somewhere," as that language assumes what we're talking about is an object that resides at a particular location within space-time, and I don't think that's what anyone means by the multiverse. Nor would it make sense to say the multiverse resides within some surrounding "system," as that's not, to my knowledge, what theoretical physicists are describing with the multiverse. So much more so with God.

So, yeah, if by "exists" you mean an object that actually resides in a particular location in space-time, then neither God, the multiverse, or, indeed, the universe as a whole "exist" in that narrow sense. But I see no reason to limit existence to so narrow a definition, let alone build on that the other assumptions you are making here.

Again, we seem to be talking past each other. The main point is that we don't know (i.e. we have no observable data) about what can happen outside our closed system we call the universe. We are simply guessing. My guess is at least based on what we can observe. It may very well be wrong, but really the best thing to say here is 'We don't know'. If we don't know, we can't just start assigning traits and abilities to unobserved phenomenon (like the God being defined so often after laying out this argument).

In fact, the sidebar video I posted recently shows the math points to some things not needing a cause to happen. While not directly related to the origins question, it certainly puts a dent in our 'common sense' about everything must proceed from a cause.

I'm no physicist, but my take away from the video was simply that Newtonian laws don't fully describe reality. But we already knew that, right? General relativity and quantum mechanics wouldn't be needed if Newton's formulas accounted for all of our observations.

Also, the caveat near the beginning of the video seems important to note here:

[This video] is not about whether a physical ball will really move off the top of a physical dome in the real world. In reality, you can never place a ball right at the apex without it rolling down, as you can't create the ideal conditions. And, even if you could, quantum mechanics would interfere at some point.

So, in the real world, as opposed to in theoretical mathematics, we're going to find that there is a discernible cause, even if only at the quantum level, for a ball moving.

The point of the video was about what the math says. Now it's granted the math may not be describing reality correctly, but it's interesting for sure.

I already conceded when I posted the video that it doesn't even directly apply, but was just an interesting side note on causality and what some math seems to say.

Is there any peer reviewed science that supports the premises in the KCA?

Sure, the scholarly literature on the KCA cites peer-reviewed scientific works, which is why I asked you if you've read that literature. To put it (overly) simply: any evidence that supports the standard Big Bang model is evidence in support of Premise 2.

How?

Consider what Paul Davies has to say in "Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III (1978), pg. 78:

If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunken to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of this initial singularity as the beginning of the universe.

Ok. That still has nothing to say about the 'creation' of that singularity which was the point of my question. All we can observe so far is that our universe is expanding and the natural conclusion is that it expanded from somewhere. Once time rolls back to 0, we have nothing to scientifically support what happened there. At that point it's just hypothesizing and looking for answers. Nowhere do I see anything about the energy that makes up our universe beginning to exist. We are just back to our central disagreement. Did the energy that makes up our universe exist already in some other form? Was it simply part of something else (other universes? exit of a black hole in another universe? other guesses?) or maybe something did 'poof' it into existence somehow.

[SiNcE_1985]

The irony here is definitely interesting. Special pleading is exactly where this argument usually leads as soon as someone concludes God doesn't need a cause and is eternal.

Well, when you are able to explain how a universe can begin to exist without an external cause, you'll effectively explain why God isn't needed.

And since you can do neither, then we'll continue to appeal to the best explanation by logically concluding that an external cause is not only needed, but necessary...and the attributes which are needed to cause this universe to begin to exist, matches the description of what some people call "God".

Now, you may not like that answer, but that's personal problem and there is nothing you can do about it.

That's not what I'm doing here. I'm not looking for 100% certain. I'm looking for where our current, observable data leads. Creation of energy does not fit into our observations to this point. We have also not observed anything 'beginning to exist' when you consider that anything we can observe is made of energy and what you are considering 'beginning to exist' is merely rearrangement of preexisting energy.

As the argument demonstrates, there can't be any arrangement of pre-existing energy which exists in constant state of changing forms, from eternity past.

I've yet to see you deal with this..and it ain't going anywhere.

Yes, I meant that. We have been talking past each other because we are each defining 'beginning to exist' differently.

It doesn't matter how you define it... everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Point blank, period.

Exactly. The energy(matter) already existed. It was merely rearranged/assembled.

The toaster could not have always existed on an infinite timescale.

It could not have existed from past infinity, to become assembled into a functioning toaster only a finite time ago.

The energy that is currently making up your toaster existed then. It's not like energy was created out of nowhere to make your toaster right?

This is a continual failure of understanding the nature/impossibility of infinite regress.

A toaster is made up of components which are made up of materials which are made up of atoms which as far as we understand are just a form of energy. In other words, a toaster is just a specific arrangement of energy. When did this energy begin to exist? That's the question I think we are digging for here.

There were no atoms/energy before the universe began to exist.

Ok. That still has nothing to say about the 'creation' of that singularity which was the point of my question. All we can observe so far is that our universe is expanding and the natural conclusion is that it expanded from somewhere. Once time rolls back to 0, we have nothing to scientifically support what happened there. At that point it's just hypothesizing and looking for answers. Nowhere do I see anything about the energy that makes up our universe beginning to exist. We are just back to our central disagreement. Did the energy that makes up our universe exist already in some other form? Was it simply part of something else (other universes? exit of a black hole in another universe? other guesses?) or maybe something did 'poof' it into existence somehow.

If the conditions that were required to cause our universe to expand had existed for eternity past, then it makes no logical sense as to why the universe only began to expand a finite time ago.

I don't think you understand this point, but your lack of understanding won't make it go away.