The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

I thank Con for his arguments. I must however disagree with a number of points he brings up. Before we begin I will quickly clear up a misunderstanding. I need not prove that God exists in order to prove that the KCA argument is sound. My burden in this debate is to "demonstrate that the KCA is a sound argument". Nothing more and nothing less. While the KCA argument may indeed be trying to show that God exists, my own arguments are only meant to show that the KCA argument is sound. God does not need to be proven to exist for this to be demonstrated. Con says the following: "the argument cannot be sound, as the universe can be explained without any appeal to God at all."What Con is essentially saying is that if the universe can be "explained" without any appeal to God then the KCA argument is not sound. This is not necessarily logical or true. Things can be explained in any number of ways, and one explanation has no bearing on how sound another explanation is. Let us therefore say for a moment that Con successfully explains the universe without appeal to God. Let us even go as far as to say that his argument is sound. Does this invalidate any other explanations of the universe? Other explanations of the universe are irrelevant and have no bearing on how sound the KCA argument is. We are judging and assessing the KCA argument, not making comparisons. Con says the following: "Pro talks about how energy just appeared."I do not believe I made such a claim, but allow me to clarify anyway.I refer to the fact that our universe is essentially a vast ocean of energy. According to quantum physics everything in the universe can be broken down into elementary particles[1]. One could therefore essentially say that the entire universe is like an ocean of elementary particles. These particles behave as both particles and waves and their motion is inherently random[2]. This is the metaphorical "ocean of energy" that our universe is made up of, from the smallest to the largest scale.My argument was that the universe is essentially an ocean of energy, made up of elementary particles. These miniscule particles that behave like both waves and particles, and move in an inherently random manner, have somehow come to form the universe as we know it. This is, by the way, what I mean when I say "come into being" or "beginning to exist". Why and how have the elementary particles formed the atoms and molecules that make up the matter of the universe? How has the matter in turn evolved into the universe itself. And within the universe how has matter spontaneously developed into Earth, the Sun, trees, humans, cars, books e.t.c? Last but not least... why can we seemingly explain and understand the world around us, and find patterns and organization in various aspects of our reality?The KCA argues that the universe was created by God, and that through whatever means He used, the universe formed and operates as it does. Is this less sound than the idea of elementary particles coincidentally and inexplicably forming into the universe in all it's diversity and complexity?Con says the following: "It is not clear that the universe came into being, even if it did indeed have a finite past."If the universe has a finite past, that implies that it came into being no matter how you slice it. Let us for a moment say that before the universe "formed" there was an infinite ocean of elementary particles. At that moment the universe did not exist, but it developed to form the universe. Just like none of us existed until our parents conceived us. Did we come into being out of nothing? No. Did we already exist as ourselves before being conceived? No. Likewise the universe was not the universe as we know it before the Big Bang... and therefore the universe essentially "came into being".The KCA argument may not define exactly how the universe was caused or what existed before it(other than God)... but nowhere does it say that the universe came out of nothing. The KCA argument claims that there was at the very least God, before the universe... who knows what chain of "things" and causes there may be between God and the universe?The KCA does not claim to know what existed before the universe, other than God. God is at the very least something... even if He is immaterial. Remember by the way that matter is made up of elementary particles which behave as waves and particles. Can one truly call these particles material? Our entire universe is essentially immaterial in that sense.Cause and Effect. Time and Space.Cause and effect is a concept that only makes sense in the context of time and space. If we speak of the universe beginning therefore, a problem does indeed arise. Did time and space begin with the universe? Or did they exist before the universe.What if we for a moment flip the question around. Will the universe ever stop existing? And if it does will time and space also stop existing? I would say no to both. But, let's say that the universe does stop existing at some point, whether it implodes, explodes, disintegrates, or whatever. Does time end at that moment? In fact what is the meaning of time beginning or ending in the first place? Beginning and ending are meaningless in reference to time itself, because they are both terms that only have meaning in relation to and within the context of time. With that in mind I would argue that, time is a tangent with no real relevance to the issue at hand. The KCA says nothing about time, it only says that whatever begins to exist has a cause and the universe began to exist. Don't get caught up trying to figure out how time fits into the whole picture. It's a paradox... time can not begin because there is no meaning to "beginning" without time. The universe and time are two different things. The KCA argument claims that the universe began, it does not claim that time began. ConclusionComing back full circle, I spoke of order in the previous round and earlier in this one. Order and organization are surely caused? There are phenomena which can be explained by laws and theories, can one claim that they came about without cause? Why should the universe, if you for a moment think of it as a phenomenon, be any different? Is Con essentially arguing that the universe has no cause? What seems more logical? A universe intentionally being caused to exist whether directly by God or otherwise... or a universe "emerging" spontaneously and randomly developing.The KCA argument may not definitively prove God, and it is not the only viable or logical possibility, but it is sound. I thank my opponent for their arguments, and hope I made myself clear to both him and my audience. I look forward to the next round. 1. http://www.thingsmadethinkable.com...2. http://library.thinkquest.org...