The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

1. Everything That Begins to Exist has a Cause Metaphysical Support for Premise I must have missed this logical line of reasoning in Pros original argument. Something existing without a cause is not the same as it coming from nothing. For example, if a pile of ice cubes spontaneously turns into an ice sculpture. It didn't come from nothing, but it didn't have any casual factors to its sculpting (and therefore can't exist.) It was abundantly clear, however, that the irritating inconsistencies of his first argument won't be present in his future arguments. I have my work cut out for me now, good sir. The rest of his logical justifications are quite sound, so I'll move on. I'm familiar with the school of merriological nihilism, but I myself don't subscribe to it. What I was saying is that the boat was made from pre-existing elements (The wood, nails, etc.) and therefore although they now have new properties there is no material gain since the boat's (I'll continue using my euphemism for fundamental materials, "stuff") boat stuff already existed. To misrepresent that and say that I'm implying that nothing exists is quite incorrect. I could go on to mention the Cartesian philosophy that nothing can be "proven" to exist, but it doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand, as well as boring beyond belief. Pro's premise is starting to look better than before. Moving on to... Inductive Argument You did indeed begin to exist in your current state of a living human being, but the beginning of your existence didn't cause more stuff to exist than before. The beginning of your life was a reaction, not a creation event. In any case, such an inductive line of reasoning leads you to believe that all things beginning to exist have causes. It isn't any logical certain, so your argument requires a better deductive proof. 2. The Universe began to Exist The Impossibility of an Actual Infinity I didn't need to, nor could I refute the claim that time is not infinite. Onto pro's assertion. Time and space began to exist at the big bang, but the stuff that creates it didn't. As the laws of thermodynamics stipulate, stuff can't be created or destroyed, only converted. As such, one might be lead to conclude that stuff is eternal because it can't be created. However, there is yet no further logical grounds to support this conclusion. For the purposes of my argument, it will suffice to say that stuff is unknown to have begun to exist. Modern Big Bang Cosmology Pro asserts that the singularity was the universe in its first state. There's nothing logically wrong with this. However, he goes on to say that it began to exist and thus needs a cause. How can the singularity be said to have begun to exist? I am genuinely confused by this assertion. I can't prove that it didn't begin to exist, but I would like evidence to support this. Pro seems to think that he refutes my argument by calling it nonsense. How is it nonsense to consider the singularity timeless when its existence was effectively before time existed? Still, categorizing the singularity is a philosophical matter that would do nothing for either party's case. I didn't say the universe coming into being would violate the laws of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics only applies to stuff, and since the universe is not necessarily made of stuff it doesn't have to follow the laws of thermodynamics. However, if the stuff that exists within the universe and makes several of its properties were to be created, then the laws would be violated. As such, the Big Bang theory and the laws of thermodynamics are in accordance. Pro's God hypothetical would not violate the laws, but is non-falsifiable and can't be proven. In addition, pro uses his eventual conclusion (God) to support a line of reasoning to prove that conclusion. I know that pro knows he can't do that. 3. The Universe Has a Cause My objection was just to correct your logical grammar. I have no objections with the conclusion itself. 4. If the Universe Has a Cause, then GAWDDIDIT! To clarify: The only thing an unembodied mind can do is think, and therefore if the cause of the universal genesis is one, then the universe is some kind of dream or thought. The remaining objections are humorist attempts to explain my frustration with pro's logic. Pro presents the conclusion as the false dichotomy of numbers or God. I explained that this is clearly dishonest oration, since he chose an alternative that was so easy to defeat and didn't entertain other possibilities. Each of the satirical alternatives I proposed all share a property of Pro's conclusion; they are non falsifiable and can be defended similarly to Pro. Allow me to demonstrate. 1. Time and space are illusory because this is the only remaining logical alternative. Since the cause of the universe must be beyond space and time, it must be formless and timeless. The only thing that fits that description is an abstract object such as a number, or a set. However, these things lack casual abilities. That would imply that nothing caused the universe, and if that's true then the universe must not exist. However, since we observe the universe, it must be an illusion by definition. 2. Time and space must have been created in the collapse of a larger, grander universe. Think about it- Whatever caused the universe must have been beyond that universe. Well, what's the only thing beyond space and time? Abstract objects, such as properties or sets, fit this description, but they lack casual power. Therefore, the only thing conceivable to be able to cause our universe must be something similar to it, albeit larger. The only thing that can fit that description is a larger universe. You can infer from the fact that something can't come from nothing that our universe must have at one point been a part of that super-verse. A viable model can't be established because the superverse is beyond ours and is therefore beyond understanding. 3. Time and Space must be the stomach of an invisible pink space panda. Think about it- if the universe has a cause, them it must be beyond the universe itself. Such a thing may be some kind of abstract object, like a property or a number, but these things lack casual powers and may be safely ruled out. Therefore, the only remaining conclusion is an invisible pink panda. Since this panda has to itself have a cause, there must be an infinite nesting chain of pandas that can allow each other to exist. It must be invisible because we can't see it, and since it's beyond the universe it can also be pink, because our universal laws do not apply to it. I remain that while these conclusions do indeed make little sense, I'm only using the same logic that Pro is using. I was very wrong in saying that pro thinks "I dunno, therefore Gawd." He is quite too intelligent for that. A man of pro's level of mental fortitude knows to play on where others fail. Pro's logic is more accurately put: "YOU dunno, therefore Gawd." Now, allow me to use my better judgement to refute pro's ridiculous claim. What caused God? He must have a cause himself, and those causes must have causes, leading to infinite Gods. You said yourself that this is impossible. Even if one was to ignore this hole in your theory, you must also present a logically irrefutable line of reasoning as to why God is the only logical answer and propose a model that describes his existence and how he directly influenced the creation of the universe. You were very wrong when you implied that I did not take this debate seriously. I don't waste good words like these on the ramblings of fools, and you are certainly no fool. I have only the utmost respect for you, and as such have only my best wordcraft for you. I expect you to treat me in kind. Do not disappoint me, pro.