The Existence of God & The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Anguspure]

It's not complicated, the way the equations are set up do not apply to quantum mechanics and so fail to apply. The theorem fails to account for quantum mechanics. Do you understand? We can't apply classical laws to quantum space.

I cannot really claim that I understand the beginning of the universe. We have a picture which kind of makes sense, which I think is an achievement. Because, if you think about it, you say, “OK, what happened before the Big Bang, before inflation?” It seems you can keep asking these questions and the answer is impossible.

But this quantum creation from “nothing” seems to avoid these questions. It has a nice mathematical description, not just words. There’s an interesting thing, though; the description of the creation of the universe from nothing is given in terms of the laws of physics. That makes you wonder, where are these laws? If the laws describe the creation of the universe, that suggests they existed prior to the universe. The question that nobody has any idea how to address is where these laws come from and why these laws in particular? So there are a lot of mysteries to keep us working.

Apparently the fat lady is still in the dressing room.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Your post and the device with which you made it did not come from nothing without any antecedent cause. Everything you made mention of supports this. Splitting hairs is fine but once again you're missing the forest for the trees. From nothing, nothing comes. This is a metaphysical principle and is simply not dependent upon us observing things coming into being. The inductive support is not the chief reason given to support premise 1. If you have misgivings with the appeal to inductive support for premise 1, disregard it. You still have the metaphysical principle and the second supporting argument.

Of course it did not come from nothing that's what I'm saying. Something came form something else and it had a cause. That is the universe we experience. The examples you give are not not examples of things beginning to exist and are therefore irrelevant to Premise 1. I may be splitting hairs but if we are going to make a logical argument the wording matters. I'm know I'm hung up on this 'begin to exist' thing because I think it undermines the subsequent argument. If it said something like 'every event has a cause' then I would agree. We live in a universe where a thing beginning to exist from not existing would be a violation of the laws of physics. So we are speculating a hypothetical cause for something that is not possible.

(ii) If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing.

The point is we live in a universe where things don't just come into being whether it be from nothing or something. This would violate the first law of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. And even if it was possible for something to come into existence within the universe we would not necessarily be able to infer anything from that in relation to the cause of the universe itself.

(iii) Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1.

What evidence and experience exactly do we have of something beginning to exist? I challenged you before to come up with an example of something coming into existence from not existing. When we have some examples we can then postulate causes, otherwise the whole premise is just nonsense.

If the universe comes into being it either does so as the result of a sufficient cause or it comes from nothing. Since nothing comes from nothing and never can, if the universe comes into being, it does so as a result of a sufficient cause.

I think you've set up a false dichotomy here. The answer may well be something no one has thought of yet. Time is a property of the universe and if we want to discuss what happened before time began the notions of cause and effect become nonsensical without a spacetime for them to occur in. The laws of physics no longer apply, logic no longer applies. I don't believe we can deduce anything about the origin of the universe through logic and inductive reasoning. Perhaps only if we come up with some new physics to describe the singularity.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent
In the Beginning Was the Beginning
Apparently Vilenkin doesn't know how to use his theorem correctly either .

Apparently. Look up Sean Carroll to see why and there are multiple physicists who agree with Carroll. It is not absolute the universe had a beginning based on the bgv theorem, it is still open for debate. Therefore premise 2 is not TRUTH, but is still being debated. The problem is as I've already explained, the assumption behind the bgv theorem is classical laws does not solve for quantum. This is just fact, nothing to debate here. Then the question is, does the quantum have a beginning? Answer: no one knows.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Apparently the fat lady is still in the dressing room.

Exactly it's still open for debate, therefore not a proof for the beginning of the universe because this universe includes quantum space. Aron Wall writes a brief overview of Carroll's position on the bgv theorem here Did the Universe Begin? III: BGV Theorem » Undivided Looking

 

[Everybodyknows]

Ah....the infamous taxi cab fallacy raises its wee head. Its always surprising to find people denying causality in this way.

Why is disagreeing with a proposition that you find baseless a fallacy?

W. Lane-Craig explains: You can't dismiss the causal principle like a cab once you get to the universe!

Why not? I see no reason to believe that the laws of the universe apply outside of the universe.

Premise 1 is not merely a law of nature, like the law of gravity, which only applies to the universe.

So we are calling something that has never been observed within our universe a law of nature

Rather it's a metaphysical principle that governs all being, all reality...

Not only has he failed to establish that it's a law of nature he now claims this law transcends nature and the universe with zero evidence.

It's hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false in the light of the evidence...

Again what evidence? How do we determine the plausibility of something that is hypothetical and does not happen in our universe?

If the price of denying the arguments conclusion is denying premise 1, then atheism is philosophically bankrupt.

The problem to me is not the conclusion but premise 1. Also I'm not an atheist and I fail to see what the KCA has to do with god or atheism. It's just implying a cause for the universe that is outside the universe.

But of course your question:

What have we ever actually observed beginning to exist?

...is valid, and, along with the obvious response, you actually confirming the premise.

The proof of the invisible unicorn is the fact that I can't see it.

Of course nothing can come from nothing, nothing ever could. Something always comes from something else and this is what premise 1 posits; that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Can you not see a huge difference between something coming from something else and something beginning to exist? I can accept the former but the latter has no basis in the reality we experience. The problem with premise 1 is before we even get to talking about cause, its making a blanket statement about things beginning to exist which had no basis in realty.

 

[Anguspure]

Exactly it's still open for debate, therefore not a proof for the beginning of the universe because this universe includes quantum space. Aron Wall writes a brief overview of Carroll's position on the bgv theorem here Did the Universe Begin? III: BGV Theorem » Undivided Looking

The paper provides a proof that the boundary exists for universes that exhibit that similar characteristics to the one for which we have evidence.
Its is the nature of science to speculate, and that is good and useful, but for all normal purposes the most plausible explanation lies in the direction of the evidence.
To expect a rational thinking person to accept the speculations of theoretical academics who no longer even recognize the boundary between the real world and the worlds of their imaginings, over the long standing and rational evidence before them is, well ....lunacy.

 

[Anguspure]

Why is disagreeing with a proposition that you find baseless a fallacy?

Presumably you accept causality as a principle? The fallacy comes when one dismisses the principle like a taxi cab when one reaches the point at which one wants to get off ie: the cause of the universe.
W. Lane-Craig writes:

But I didn't think they'd go after premise 1. For that would expose them as people not sincerely seeking after truth but just looking for an academic refutation of the argument...Quentin Smith of the Western Michigan University responded that the most rational position to hold is that the universe came "from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing"....For it is, I repeat literally worse than magic. If this is the alternative to belief in God, then unbelievers can never accuse believers of irrationality, for what could be more evidently irrational than this?

Why not? I see no reason to believe that the laws of the universe apply outside of the universe.

This is explained. The cause as a principle exists like logic.

So we are calling something that has never been observed within our universe a law of nature

As for logic this is reasonable, either that or one must stop thinking that one might even be able to think about things beyond the universe we inhabit.

Again what evidence? How do we determine the plausibility of something that is hypothetical and does not happen in our universe?

There is nothing that has ever been observed to begin to exist without a cause. A rational person might consider that the causal principle has over whelming evidence in its favour.

The problem to me is not the conclusion but premise 1. Also I'm not an atheist and I fail to see what the KCA has to do with god or atheism. It's just implying a cause for the universe that is outside the universe.

That is correct, and then the nature of the cause may be established on other grounds possibly leading to the existence of God.
The KCA, if it is successful, gives us one of a number of different arguments that when combined provide us with evidence that the existence of God is reasonable and rationally more plausible than not.

Can you not see a huge difference between something coming from something else and something beginning to exist?

Not really, a thing can begin to exist even thought the stuff from which it is made has previously been used for something else.
For example at one point you did not exist, and then you began to exist. The fact that you are composed of recycled matter that was formerly used as something else does nothing to detract from the fact that at some point the thing, the person, that is you began to exist and did not in fact exist before that point.

I can accept the former but the latter has no basis in the reality we experience. The problem with premise 1 is before we even get to talking about cause, its making a blanket statement about things beginning to exist which had no basis in realty.

Are you really suggesting that for something to begin to exist it has to be a completely unique creation ex nihilo?

For it is, I repeat literally worse than magic. If this is the alternative to belief in God, then unbelievers can never accuse believers of irrationality, for what could be more evidently irrational than this?

 

[Everybodyknows]

Presumably you accept causality as a principle?

Yes but only in a universe with the property of time. Causality as a concept cannot exist outside of time or before time began.

This is explained. The cause as a principle exists like logic.

It's not explained its assumed. I still see no reason to even entertain the idea that the same logic that applies within our universe applies outside of it. For example most christians believe God inhabits some higher divine realm that is not limited by the laws of nature, logic and causality as in our universe

As for logic this is reasonable, either that or one must stop thinking that one might even be able to think about things beyond the universe we inhabit.

Yes this is exactly what I think. I don't think we can use reason to deduce the nature of anything outside of or before our universe. We can't even be sure if the concepts of before or outside the universe are even valid.

There is nothing that has ever been observed to begin to exist without a cause. A rational person might consider that the causal principle has over whelming evidence in its favour.

Nothing has ever been observed to begin to exist with a cause. Causality is merely stating that everything that happens has a cause. To you they may be the same but to me they are totally different.

That is correct, and then the nature of the cause may be establishedon other grounds possibly leading to the existence of God.
The KCA, if it is successful, gives us one of a number of different arguments that when combined provide us with evidence that the existence of God is reasonable and rationally more plausible than not.

Yes agreed. But even if KCA was shown to be false it would in no way negate or lessen the plausibility of God's existence (well for me anyway).

Not really, a thing can begin to exist even thought the stuff from which it is made has previously been used for something else.
For example at one point you did not exist, and then you began to exist. The fact that you are composed of recycled matter that was formerly used as something else does nothing to detract from the fact that at some point the thing, the person, that is you began to exist and did not in fact exist before that point.

Ok good example! I see why we are disagreeing, we are working of different definitions of beginning to exist.

For example, I take some grape juice, put it in a bottle and let it ferment into wine. Now I could say wine has begun to exist and the grape juice has ceased to exist, but these are only concepts in my mind. Conceptually wine has begun to exist but physically the whole process was governed by natural laws and nothing in reality has come to exist.

Likewise I have been formed by natural proceeds that take matter and energy and arrange them into me. I have only begun to exist conceptually in my own perception and the perception of others.

Are you really suggesting that for something to begin to exist it has to be a completely unique creation ex nihilo?

Actually yes. To me that is the definition of beginning to exist. For something to go from non-existence to existing. The only example we have of that is the universe beginning to exist. There was no universe and then BANG! the universe existed. And I think our observations of causality within the universe are insufficient grounds on which to make claims about the origins of the universe itself.

 

[anonymous person]

Yes but only in a universe with the property of time. Causality as a concept cannot exist outside of time or before time began.


It's not explained its assumed. I still see no reason to even entertain the idea that the same logic that applies within our universe applies outside of it. For example most christians believe God inhabits some higher divine realm that is not limited by the laws of nature, logic and causality as in our universe


Yes this is exactly what I think. I don't think we can use reason to deduce the nature of anything outside of or before our universe. We can't even be sure if the concepts of before or outside the universe are even valid.


Nothing has ever been observed to begin to exist with a cause. Causality is merely stating that everything that happens has a cause. To you they may be the same but to me they are totally different.


Yes agreed. But even if KCA was shown to be false it would in no way negate or lessen the plausibility of God's existence (well for me anyway).


Ok good example! I see why we are disagreeing, we are working of different definitions of beginning to exist.

For example, I take some grape juice, put it in a bottle and let it ferment into wine. Now I could say wine has begun to exist and the grape juice has ceased to exist, but these are only concepts in my mind. Conceptually wine has begun to exist but physically the whole process was governed by natural laws and nothing in reality has come to exist.

Likewise I have been formed by natural proceeds that take matter and energy and arrange them into me. I have only begun to exist conceptually in my own perception and the perception of others.


Actually yes. To me that is the definition of beginning to exist. For something to go from non-existence to existing. The only example we have of that is the universe beginning to exist. There was no universe and then BANG! the universe existed. And I think our observations of causality within the universe are insufficient grounds on which to make claims about the origins of the universe itself.

Anguspure and I are making a point. That point may better be made if we give you two propositions and ask you which one you think is more plausibly true.

1. If the universe comes into being, then it has a cause.

2. If the universe comes into being, then it does not have a cause.

2. Is the negation of 1.

Which do you think is more plausible?

 

[anonymous person]

Yes but only in a universe with the property of time. Causality as a concept cannot exist outside of time or before time began.

The Kalam does not argue that causality as a concept exists outside of or before time.

To think it does is to misunderstand the argument. Which premise does your statement even address?

 

[anonymous person]

It's not complicated, the way the equations are set up do not apply to quantum mechanics and so fail to apply. The theorem fails to account for quantum mechanics. Do you understand? We can't apply classical laws to quantum space.

Actually it does. I have a personal correspondence from Vilenkin himself which refutes what you have just said.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Anguspure and I are making a point. That point may better be made if we give you two propositions and ask you which one you think is more plausibly true.

1. If the universe comes into being, then it has a cause.

2. If the universe comes into being, then it does not have a cause.

2. Is the negation of 1.

Which do you think is more plausible?

I think it's more plausible that neither are true based on the way I view time and the beginning of the universe.

Let me ask you this: do you believe time began when the universe began? If you agree with this as I do, then it makes no sense to talk about cause and effect before time began as cause requires time to be a valid concept.

For there to be cause and effect before the universe it would require time to be transcendent and exist before the universe. But if there was time before the universe then it would be more valid to say the universe always existed rather than it began to exist, because time would require a universe to exist within.

 

[Everybodyknows]

The Kalam does not argue that causality as a concept exists outside of or before time.

To think it does is to misunderstand the argument.

I'll disagree with you here, the implication of the argument is exactly that as long as you accept that time is a property of the universe and does not precede it.

No universe -> cause -> universe begins to exist.

The cause must precede that which was caused, which implies the cause is outside of the universe and time. The cause being within time makes no sense as it would place the cause of the universe after the universe began.

Which premise does your statement even address?

I see this as a logical implication of the argument whole.

 

[anonymous person]

I think it's more plausible that neither are true based on the way I view time and the beginning of the universe.

Let me ask you this: do you believe time began when the universe began? If you agree with this as I do, then it makes no sense to talk about cause and effect before time began as cause requires time to be a valid concept.

For there to be cause and effect before the universe it would require time to be transcendent and exist before the universe. But if there was time before the universe then it would be more valid to say the universe always existed rather than it began to exist, because time would require a universe to exist within.

Why can't the cause of the universe exist timelessly and then in time at the first moment of creation?

And why are you talking about cause and effect before time began? Who is saying that?

If spacetime comes into being at t=1, why cannot the cause of spacetime exist timelessly without the universe and in time at t=1?

You are going to either change the way you view time and the notion of a cosmic beginning or you have to maintain that the universe can pop into being from nothing without a cause!!! This is literally worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the hat and the magician!

It seems obvious to me that if time begins at t=1 then there was a timeless state of affairs wherein the cause of spacetime existed. Either that or spacetime just comes from nothing, by nothing, for nothing!!!

 

[anonymous person]

I'll disagree with you here, the implication of the argument is exactly that as long as you accept that time is a property of the universe and does not precede it.

No universe -> cause -> universe begins to exist.

The cause must precede that which was caused, which implies the cause is outside of the universe and time. The cause being within time makes no sense as it would place the cause of the universe after the universe began.


I see this as a logical implication of the argument whole.

You're wrong. You need to revise the direction to read:

Timeless cause existing sans the universe -> said cause creates spacetime and is in time at the first moment of creation.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

Actually it does. I have a personal correspondence from Vilenkin himself which refutes what you have just said.

Good for you. Does vilenkin believe he proved the beginning of the universe? Guth doesn't.

Here is an excerpt of Carroll's:

The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don't know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down.

Then Carroll quotes Guth by showing photos of him holding up a series of signs: "I don't know whether the universe had a beginning." "I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning." "It's very likely eternal but nobody knows."

So if dr Guth who found the bgv theorem isn't convinced by his own theorem, why are you?

 

[Everybodyknows]

And why are you talking about cause and effect before time began? Who is saying that?

I'm just trying to illustrate the logical absurdity of saying the beginning of time has a cause. For there to be a cause of time the cause has to precede time which is totally nonsensical.

If spacetime comes into being at t=1, why cannot the cause of spacetime exist timelessly without the universe and in time at t=1?

Because it becomes undefinable as a cause if the cause and effect occupy the same instant in time. Cause precedes effect. Always. That is causality by definition. Saying the cause of the beginning of time and time beginning occurred simultaneously is just as absurd as saying cause came after effect.

You are going to either change the way you view time and the notion of a cosmic beginning or you have to maintain that the universe can pop into being from nothing without a cause!!! This is literally worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you have the hat and the magician!

I'm not saying the universe came from nothing without cause. I'm thinking outside the box of your dichotomy of the universe either began with or without a cause. I am saying that the very notion of cause becomes undefinable at the beginning of the universe. We have to come up with a radically different concept to causality to even begin to explain it.

It seems obvious to me that if time begins at t=1 then there was a timeless state of affairs wherein the cause of spacetime existed. Either that or spacetime just comes from nothing, by nothing, for nothing!!!

Seeming obvious does not make it true particularly if we are discussing the singularity of the beginning of the universe.

Think about this. Lets rewind to t=0. The very beginning, the singularity. The moment of the beginning of time, but before any time has yet passed. I could rightly describe this moment as both instantaneous and eternal, but it is neither. No time, no dimensions, no matter or energy. I can call it both nothing and something, I could say it both exists and it doesn't exist. Non of those things would be wrong strictly, but it's also not any of those things. It's an entirely different reality to the one we experience and base our reasoning. Everything we know and believe about the universe does not exist there. Cause and effect are undefinable.

So unless some physicist cracks the singularity or we gain access to some divine realm, we cannot understand the beginning of the universe. Our minds are constrained to the reality within which they are contained.

 

[anonymous person]

Good for you. Does vilenkin believe he proved the beginning of the universe? Guth doesn't.

Here is an excerpt of Carroll's:

The second premise of the Kalam argument is that the universe began to exist. Which may even be true! But we certainly don't know, or even have strong reasons to think one way or the other. Craig thinks we do have a strong reason, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. So I explained what every physicist who has thought about the issue understands: that the real world is governed by quantum mechanics, and the BGV theorem assumes a classical spacetime, so it says nothing definitive about what actually happens in the universe; it is only a guideline to when our classical description breaks down.

Then Carroll quotes Guth by showing photos of him holding up a series of signs: "I don't know whether the universe had a beginning." "I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning." "It's very likely eternal but nobody knows."

So if dr Guth who found the bgv theorem isn't convinced by his own theorem, why are you?

Several things need to be said:

1. I am not convinced that the universe had a beginning because of the BGV theorem. I know it began because I have a personal relationship with its Creator.

2. I appealed to the BGV theorem as one line of supporting evidence for premise 2 of the Kalam argument for your benefit, an argument which in no way had anything to do with my being born again and coming to know Jesus Christ, the Creator of all that exists.

3. The main reasons given for thinking that premise 2 is more plausible than its negation are the two philosophical arguments Anguspure has already provided which are defended by professional philosophers which themselves are further supported by various lines of scientific evidence, of which the BGV theorem is but one.

4. I know the universe had a beginning and every piece of evidence that astronomers and cosmologists have unearthed in their research confirms this.

5. I know that from nothing, nothing comes and that men like Quentin Smith, and Dan Dennett, although being very smart, have existential and emotional misgivings about the theological implications of a cosmic beginning and thus they would rather maintain that the universe can come from nothing, by nothing, for nothing or that the universe created itself.

6. The Kalam is not an argument that compels assent. It is no aim of the Kalam to convince those that are unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads, but rather, serves as a part of a cumulative case for theism in general and Christianity in particular.

7. I am discussing the Kalam here because this is what the thread is about and the Kalam interests me.

8. For a more detailed treatment of the Kalam, feel free to visit my blog at Mere Apologetics

 

[Anguspure]

Yes but only in a universe with the property of time. Causality as a concept cannot exist outside of time or before time began.

Clearly, according to the principle; time is observed concurrent with the effect and the effect is subordinate to the cause.

Further to this there is no reason why cause, effect and time could not proceed in this way in a staccato manner as we indeed observe at the quantum level.

In this way we see that time itself is subject to the causal principle.

It's not explained its assumed. I still see no reason to even entertain the idea that the same logic that applies within our universe applies outside of it. For example most christians believe God inhabits some higher divine realm that is not limited by the laws of nature, logic and causality as in our universe

Logic is subordinate to and assumes causality. It would appear that your contention undermines the very rational upon which you stand to make the assertion as well as destroying our ability to reason and do science.

But what has what people believe, disconnected from reality as it often is, got to do with it? Particularly when a reasonable and plausible defense of what is real can be mounted.

Yes this is exactly what I think. I don't think we can use reason to deduce the nature of anything outside of or before our universe. We can't even be sure if the concepts of before or outside the universe are even valid.

The principles of causality and logic are not subordinate to anything that exists subsequent to the beginning of the universe, so what grounds do you have to consider that they not apply beyond the observable universe?

Nothing has ever been observed to begin to exist with a cause. Causality is merely stating that everything that happens has a cause. To you they may be the same but to me they are totally different.

The observations supply real world evidence for the theoretical principle that underlies logic.

Yes agreed. But even if KCA was shown to be false it would in no way negate or lessen the plausibility of God's existence (well for me anyway).

Here we agree and agree with Leibniz.

Ok good example! I see why we are disagreeing, we are working of different definitions of beginning to exist.

For example, I take some grape juice, put it in a bottle and let it ferment into wine. Now I could say wine has begun to exist and the grape juice has ceased to exist, but these are only concepts in my mind. Conceptually wine has begun to exist but physically the whole process was governed by natural laws and nothing in reality has come to exist.

Likewise I have been formed by natural proceeds that take matter and energy and arrange them into me. I have only begun to exist conceptually in my own perception and the perception of others.

Actually yes. To me that is the definition of beginning to exist. For something to go from non-existence to existing. The only example we have of that is the universe beginning to exist.

Wow! So everything that begins to exist, up to the universe itself, has a cause. But, for some unsubstantiated reason, when it comes to the universe we are expected to dismiss the fundamental principle of reason itself?

There was no universe and thenBANG! the universe existed. And I think our observations of causality within the universe are insufficient grounds on which to make claims about the origins of the universe itself.

Why do you think that only the universe can come into existence from nothing? Surely if a universe can come suddenly “BANG!” come into existence in this way then other things could also “Poof!” (less than a "BANG!" Because they’re smaller things) begin to exist. Why don’t we observe things like bowls of petunias and whales suddenly appearing in the sky out of nothing? As W. Lane-Craig asks:

What makes nothing so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness for there isn’t anything to be constrained.

 

[anonymous person]

I'm just trying to illustrate the logical absurdity of saying the beginning of time has a cause. For there to be a cause of time the cause has to precede time which is totally nonsensical.

How is the concept of a timelessly existing cause of the universe creating the universe nonsensical?

You have either one of two options:

1. A timelessly existing cause of the universe creates the universe

or

2. The universe pops into being without a cause from nothing, by nothing, for nothing.

It seems indefensible to me for you to claim that nothing can create something. Talk about nonsensical!!!

I am arguing that something created spacetime and you are arguing that nothing created spacetime!

How is your position preferable to mine again?

Because it becomes undefinable as a cause if the cause and effect occupy the same instant in time. Cause precedes effect. Always. That is causality by definition. Saying the cause of the beginning of time and time beginning occurred simultaneously is just as absurd as saying cause came after effect.

If you place a ball on a cushion, an indentation will appear where the ball is resting on the cushion. The indentation occurs simultaneously the moment the ball touches the cushion.

This is one of numerous examples of an instantaneous or simultaneous cause effect relation.

Seems to me, you're only recourse is to maintain that the universe is eternal and that it never came into being and if that is the case, then your misgiving is with premise 2, not premise 1.

I'm not saying the universe came from nothing without cause. I'm thinking outside the box of your dichotomy of the universe either began with or without a cause. I am saying that the very notion of cause becomes undefinable at the beginning of the universe. We have to come up with a radically different concept to causality to even begin to explain it.

Why is it undefinable?

Saying it is so by definition is not a good argument.

Seeming obvious does not make it true particularly if we are discussing the singularity of the beginning of the universe.

But you agree that nothing comes from nothing.

Think about this. Lets rewind to t=0. The very beginning, the singularity.

Let me stop you right there because you're wrong. T=0 is not the beginning. T=1 is the beginning of time.

The moment of the beginning of time,

Is t=1, not t=0. Zero is zero.

I could rightly describe this moment

the word moment implies time.

as both instantaneous and eternal, but it is neither. No time, no dimensions, no matter or energy.

You just contradicted yourself. You spoke of a moment, you then speak of this moment as "no time".

I can call it both nothing and something,

This is where you are violating one of the fundamental laws of logic. Nothing cannot be something.

I could say it both exists and it doesn't exist.

Another violation of a fundamental law of logic. It is either or, not both and.

Non of those things would be wrong strictly,

Sure they would. Unless you don't count being illogical as wrong. If that is the case, the least of your worries is the Kalam.

but it's also not any of those things. It's an entirely different reality to the one we experience and base our reasoning. Everything we know and believe about the universe does not exist there. Cause and effect are undefinable.

If that were the case, you would not know it. Your position is self-stultifying. It is like saying we cannot know anything about the earliest moments of the universe or how it came to be. If we can't know anything about these things, you would not know that nothing can be known. Thus the statement is self-refuting and necessarily false.

So unless some physicist cracks the singularity or we gain access to some divine realm, we cannot understand the beginning of the universe. Our minds are constrained to the reality within which they are contained.

Self refuting statements are necessarily false and logic cannot be set aside just because we are talking about cosmic beginnings.

You earlier alluded to something as a "logical implication of my views", you then set aside logic to defend your own view. Logic is not something we pick up and put down when it suits us.