The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Rebutting My Opponent "Your attack at my theory of pendulums is trivial, essentially your saying we cant describe the universe in anyway or form since we have no experience of oscillating and by consequence your reference of quantum gravity should also be nullified as we to have no experience of the universe contracting." - Pro The above is a straw-man fallacy. I did not say that we cannot describe the universe in anyway or form, I just said that just because a pendulum swing has a beginning, that wouldn't mean an oscillating universe does. Con was committing the non-sequitur fallacy, and I was just pointing that out. That has nothing to do with quantum gravity. "To be quite frank it is a very necessary assumption since for us it is logically plausible for a universe to be created probably what most people would think, and by extension a creator who or what is labelled as God." - Pro This is the Ad Populum fallacy. Just because most people would say that, that wouldn't mean the idea of God is necessary. Also, it doesn't really matter what most lay-people think. Most philosophers are Atheists, and most scientists are as well. They are the experts about reality and knowledge; not your average Joe. "The Universe must expand into something, what is it expanding into? is it expanding into something as well? what is that something? has it always been there? You see its not the universe that's the problem with the expanding for an infinite time, its whats NOT the universe that is the problem. A string of inconsistency here I don't think even physicists are ready to commit to an infinite universe which might actually require an infinite amount of energy to maintain it, similar to how we require energy each day to be maintained (on top of the fact it needs to contract and expand)" - Pro Many physicists commit to an infinite past (like Anthony Aguirre). Pro has pointed out no problems with an infinite past, and has not supported the notion that the universe is expanding into something. Pro is trying to build a case off of fallacies and bare-assertions. "Evolution is a consequence of Kalam Cosmological Argument." - Pro No it isn't. Evolution has nothing to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. "Ok so I understand Energy conservation is never violated but equally why would the ratio's of energy change, surely if it was always there it would also do what it was doing initially (newtons 1st of motion to an extent) so if it was contracting it would always contract or expanding, it would always expand which is clearly shown by the doppler effect and we can't just presume contraction eventually since it hasn't occurred and we have not experience of it." - Pro The universe probably has a zero total sum energy. energy can be both positive and negative. This means, that as much new energy can be created without violation of any physical laws as long as there is enough negative energy to balance it out. A flat universe has zero total energy:"[T]he flat universe has a zero energy"[1]Even in a closed universe, the universe plausibly has a total energy sum of zero[2]. This is because if you added up all the positive energy (motion, matter ect.) and the negative energy of gravitational attraction (and just simply stored in space), they would cancel each other out. Negative energy has even been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates[3]. Thus, energy can be created, as long as there is enough negative energy to balance it out. There is no reason there cannot be an infinite string of oscillation. "You haven't tore down any solutions because you have no experience if these assertions, similar to the fact we have no experience of an oscillating universe which is essentially contradicting the Big Bounce which you stated in a previous argument" - Pro You don't need to experience a solution, to posit it as a possible solution. This is another non-sequitur fallacy from my opponent. "What we have here ladies and gentlemen is a person, who undoubtedly knew he would not change his belief without some sort of physical proof and I am afraid this is not possible and, if so, he has come to the wrong place to find this, I find this argument nonsensical after addressing these issues because, to summarise, the points he uses to criticise my argument is the same repetitive 'we can't just infer that' well equally instead of me proving infinity is impossible, I challenge you to prove it is possible." This is known as the switching the burden of proof fallacy. Pro made the claim that infinity was impossible, so he must justify it. --- Well, this was pretty easy. All of my opponents arguments are logical fallacies, and he barely even attempted to support P1 or P2 of the KCA (let alone show that the cause has to be God!). Since Pro has the burden of proof; the resolution has not been established. Sources [1] http://news.softpedia.com... [2] http://arxiv.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...