(Original post by robstening)
The criticisms section of the Kalam article:
Most of the arguments are based either on quantum theory (which is in turn based on the laws of physics
, which in part of my argument must come from something
), or other examples - radioactive decay (which requires particles in the first place) - Casimir effect, which requires fields created by matter - Iqbal assumes that the universe is infinite, which it is *not* (http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm
, quotes Hawking), at least not according every reasonable supposition I've seen.
If nothing existed, neither did rules - they would firstly have no cause to exist (which doesn't make it impossible that they did, but) - the laws would have to start at some point. The 'universe' is governed by laws.
All the theories non compatible with the picture of the the universe in my article - not having the view of universe as anything other than a single 'plane' with a start - involve an "infinite loop of universes". I looked at this in my article - is a series of events is infinite, time can never pass and so none of the universes will ever end or pass on to the next ["finger click and chocolate model" in the article].
Now I don't claim them to be perfect, but I claim them to be valid.
As for virtual particles, as far as I can think, if they are cycling between two 'states', then that "cycle" must have had a start? I'm no physist but I would assume that a particle must have at least had a 'first' 'on' state.
Lastly, if you read the article, you would see I do not claim anything existing as "intelligent, self-aware, omnipotent, [or] omniscient", until establishing something without a start or finish which caused the universe.
In fact, I ask the question and then and and then go on to explain the reasoning.
I would appreciate you reading the article so that we can discuss 'on the same playing field'. Up to you.
EDIT: Colliding Branes are temporary and material. They may have been the first thing in the universe, there may be many different possibilities for the beginning of the chain of events. I'm not saying that the universe exactly as we know it must be directly caused by God/"the Extime", I even say its possible this is one of many universes, but that there has to be a start. As with anything that exists materially, there has to be a start.