The ArgumentPart 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Parts 1 and 2 set the stage for my semiclassical cosmological argument.

For example, I defined the general concept of a cosmological argument. That is, a cosmological argument uses premises and deduction to prove the existence of God by logically implying the necessity of God and the dependency of all natural phenomena.

Now, I clarify that my cosmological argument leans toward the kalam cosmological argument proposed by William Lane Craig.

For instance, The syllogism of Craig's kalam cosmological argument follows:

—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: The physical universe began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the physical universe had a cause."

My modification follows:

—"Major premise: Whatever begins to exist had a cause."
—"Minor premise: Tensed Planck time intervals foremostly began to exist."
—"Conclusion: Therefore, the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals had a cause."

And this leads to my Proposition 3:

"Proposition 3: The kalam cosmological syllogism implies that an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed Planck time intervals."

Now, I clarify a major caveat of the minor premise.

That is, if eternalism is true, then tensed time intervals do not exist. For example, if eternalism is true, then everything considered in the past, present, or future has always existed and will always exist. Therefore, eternalism implies that everything exists without cause and objective tense.

And that explains why I put together parts 1 and 2 to defend clarified presentism.

The Logical Impossibility for an Infinite Passage of Time
Next, let me illustrate how an infinite passage of time, let alone a past infinite passage of time, is logically impossible.

Consider the future from any starting point in time. The future can endure without end, but the amount of elapsed time intervals will always equal a finite number.

For example, we can say that the future is potentially infinite. However, potential infinity is not a number but a process that never ends. And in the case of elapsed time intervals, potential infinity with a starting point always results in a finite age.

A Universe from So-Called Nothing
Some physicists, such as Lawrence Kraus, propose that the physical universe arose from nothing. However, when we read the fine print of his proposal, we see that he defines that nothingness exhibits instability.

All theoretical physics proposals of a universe from nothing ultimately imply an infinite past of quantum instability. Typical references to quantum instability are quantum foam or spacetime foam. And quantum foam exhibits the passage of time.

The Attributes of God
Next, assuming presentism or some other A-Theory of time, an uncaused entity caused the foremost beginning of tensed time intervals. The uncaused entity created the first physical universe. We commonly refer to this entity as God or the Supreme Being.

One attribute of God is the ability to originate a physical universe.

I imagine that God started by generating a finely tuned quantum vacuum.

And the quantum vacuum originated with a radius of a mere Planck length (the theoretically smallest possible measurement of spatial distance).

And the quantum vacuum started with zero-point energy (the lowest possible amount of energy in a quantum system.)

Then, God heated the Planck length, finely tuned quantum vacuum to the Planck temperature (the highest possible temperature, 10 to the power of 32 degrees Kelvin).

And from there, the universe proceeded to expand according to the big bang theory.

However, I clarify that this ability to generate a finely tuned quantum vacuum and then heat it to the Planck temperature does not logically imply that God can meticulously control the universe after the expansion began.

For example, consider my "Proposition 1: God could possibly create a physical universe out of nothing while that universe is beyond meticulous control."

Also, "God's everlasting force that can create a spacetime universe out of nothing cannot meticulously control the particles of the creation,"

"but synergy between God and created agents can exhibit limited intervention in the creation that is subject to the possibilities of physics."

Further, I hold to open theism. That is, God knows everything about the present, which consists of all future possibilities. And that includes God knowing the best responses to the present and all possible future circumstances.

Everything considered, I propose that God's original attributes are everlasting within logical consistency.

And we can tell people that God loves them with everlasting love despite God's inability to immediately eradicate senseless, horrific evil.

Sources
—William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument," in "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology," 2009, pages 101-201, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444308334.ch3
—Lawrence M. Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing," 2012.
—James Goetz, "Theodicy, Supreme Providence, and Semiclassical Theism," Theology and Science, 2021, volume 19, issue 1, pages 42-64, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825195 or the free preprint at https://philpapers.org/rec/GOETSP-4

The Three-Part Series
1) Quantum Entanglement, ER=EPR, and Observers: Part 1 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
2) Universal Wormhole Observers and Clarified Presentism: Part 2 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum
3) The Argument: Part 3 of the Semiclassical Cosmological Argument in Sum

Copyright © 2022 James Edward Goetz