The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.

Thanks to Con for posting his arguments, in this round, I will be addressing refutations made by my opponent in regards to the premises of the argument. R1: Cause and Effect In this premise, Con argues that Causality as a scientific law or principle is not absolute on the quantum and cosmological level and that therefore, the universe would not require a cause. Due to outside factors, I currently do not have the time to fully address this rebuttal. I will however address this argument in its entirety during the next round, incorporating it into both my conclusive arguments and final rebuttals. R2: Age of the Universe In Con’s second series of arguments, he argues that Einstein theory of relativity is incomplete or inapplicable to the quantum level, it cannot be true. This however, is a misrepresentation of my defense towards the second premise, as the it was not the primary basis of my argument, neither mention of Einstein nor relativity were seen in my argument. While elements of the theory were present, it was not the core foundation of premise two, and certainly not to the degree that I would argue “If Einstein’s general theory of relativity is true, the universe began to exist.” The defence for premise two was in fact more dependent on the theory of the Big Bang, a theory in which Con had failed to refute in my argument. Furthermore, even if General relativity was the basis used for my argument, other , far more well accepted theories defend the second premise. For example, the second law of Thermodynamics [1], the law asserts that for a thermodynamic process to occur, an irreversible series of entropies towards a physical body must increase[2]. In short, not thermodynamic process can occur without a gradual loss of thermal energy, in other words, the supply of energy is finite. As there is a gradual decline in the supply of energy, the universe could not have existed perpetually as an infinite existence is incompatible with a finite supply. To suggest an infinite universe would require either contradicting or denying the second law of thermodynamics. Sources: 1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... 2. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... R3: Requirement of God Con argues that the existence of a universe does not require a cause such as God, suggesting that equally plausible explanations for the beginning of the universe exists. In Con’s own words: “ However, there is a different type of self-causality which does not fall into this absurdity [The absurdity of the universe existing prior to it’s beginning) . Suppose that the universe brings itself into being at an instantaneous moment; In other words, it causes itself at the same time it comes into being. One cannot object to this scenario on the basis that the universe exists before it causes itself, because there is no temporal gap in the scenario I am describing. Therefore, there is a logically possible situation where the universe brings itself into being.” Unlike the KCA, this explanation fails to explain why such an occurrence would happen. Con argued in his conclusion that an explanation like the one mentioned above shows equal plausibility to the Kalam cosmological argument, however, Con does not show how this is the case. Con only shows how it may be possible, however in my prior arguments in rebuttals I have shown how the existence of God would be necessary. As Con had reiterated previously: “Pro, on the other hand, has to offer arguments which are more convincing than mine in order to win.” This concludes a fraction of my rebuttals for this round, as stated previously, I will proceed with currently unaddressed arguments in the next round, I’ll be glad to see what Con’s response may be. Onto you con.