The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God is Sound

Con's argument seems to been reduced down to semantics (Which God?), I take this to due to the strength and plausibility of the KCA and hence I strongly encourage a vote for Pro. Throughout the duration of this argument, Con has, for the most part, almost completely ignored all three premises of the argument, instead focusing on the identity of the cause as outlined in P3. But by doing this he has conceded the argument to be sound! Recall that I said "There are, however, good reasons to believe that the cause of the universe was a personal cause with attributes that closely resemble a monotheistic conception of God" and I immediately followed that with several reasons as to why it is a personal cause. This of course obviously implies that the deity that I intended to demonstrate was a minimal conception of God as a personal being (The very context in which I used the term "God" implied it). In the strict sense, it was not a definition, but it was a definition in the informal sense in that I stated the type of deity that I would be using the argument to demonstrate. To reiterate: I stated that the KCA provided very good evidence for a general monotheistic conception of God and then proceeded to give several reasons for this. The mere fact that I used a capital G does not contain me to a specific conception of God (as we will see). "This is semantically coherent and logically equivalent to the use of the proper noun, capital-G God. We can see that this in no way suggests a generic god, and pro should not be allowed to use that as a defense. I note that the Christian God was chosen as pro was offered the choice of a different singular conception and declined." I use God as a proper noun only because I happen to believe that the identity of the being demonstrated by the KCA happens to be the Christian God. This, however, is irrelevant to my thoughts about the argument itself, since I never claimed the argument could accomplish such a feat. I affirmed a more modest task for the KCA. Simply because I believe in the Christian God and I reference him in the proper sense does not mean that the KCA _must_ demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. Indeed, it is standard among philosophers to capitalize the term "God" in books and essays pertaining to him. But by doing this they by no means relegate themselves to a specific conception of God. Con's argument here is purely semantics. "The capitalized form of 'God' means a specific conception, but one that is not specified. Given that there are multiple monotheistic conceptions of God, when pro points out that he hasn't defined which he was talking about, he is making a concession, not a defense" The context in which "God" was used throughout the argument by no means suggested that I was referring to a specific conception of him. Otherwise, use of the clause "the cause of the universe was a personal cause with attributes that closely resemble a monotheistic conception of God" would make no sense if I were defended a specific as opposed to general conception of God. Indeed, to base such an extrapolation off the use of a capital G (which is considered standard among philosophers) is rather far-fetched. "Before going further, I note that the 'minor contention' that the universe might be infinite was part a conditional argument activated if pro argued that there was no singularity outside of a mathematical abstraction. As he explicitly said "I will not respond ... as I do not believe that the initial singularity was a mathematical object," I have no need to engage his infinite universe or thermodynamic arguments as they do not relate to a point actually under discussion." This is a bizarre point. A look back that Con's OP reveals none of this. Con simply mentions that the interpretation of the singularity as a mathematical artifact was a minority position. It was in regards to this that I would not respond (Since I do not affirm the minority position). But this is completely irrelevant to my other two arguments, which still needed to be dealt with regardless of whether or not I reject that position. These arguments (especially the first, since it is purely philosophical and not scientific) are completely unrelated to how one views the singularity. Hence, Con has failed to respond to those two arguments. "Pro also agrees that initial conditions were unknown, but then states that we CAN know that "there was nothing 'before' these initial conditions"" This seems unproblematic, since there is nothing inherently contradictory with affirming that while we cannot know what the initial conditions were, we can know that there was nothing "before" these initial conditions in the sense that the big bang singularity constituted the boundary to the space-time manifold. Basically, we know that the universe had a beginning, but we do not know what exactly went on at the moment it began. Affirming the latter by no means commits us to denial of the former. (Technically, to avoid Con's dancing around this point, we CAN KNOW the initial conditions by simply introducing quantum physics into the standard big bang model). "The problem with this argument rests in the word 'before.' As discussed previously, the use of the word 'before' in relation to the beginning of time is meaningless. It is a nonsense word in this context. " Indeed! Which is precisely why I used quotation marks around it to indicate that it was a harmless figure of speech. Con has not apparently read my last post very closely. I do in fact affirm that there were no temporal moments which proceeded the big bang (the very notion is absurd). Ironically, by conceding this, Con also lends more support to P2 of the KCA. "Apart from a descent into semantic meaninglessness, pro also fails to recognize the problems of causality involved, or more specifically, the problem the lack of causality involve. His is arguing that certain things had to happen to cause the universe to be created in the way that it was. However, when causal physics are removed you can't make causal arguments.... You can't DO that. It doesn't work. This entire argument is about causal argumentation. When it's pointed out that causal physics aren't in play, you can't just say you're ignoring physics and move on" Firstly, Con makes the mistake here of treating causality as if it were a physical concept as opposed to being a metaphysical concept (Which is how P1 of the KCA is construed). The argument is indeed about causal argumentation, but the type of causation employed by the argument is not physical causation, P1 is construed in terms of a metaphysical truth (ex nihil, nihil fit). Additionally, Con still does not grasp the argument -- which is that if the universe were not a product of a free choice, then it must have existed eternally due to the fact that the necessary and sufficient conditions for it must have existed eternally. By removing physics, Con hurts his own argument. If the necessary and sufficient conditions for creating the universe were eternally existent, then causal physics must have been eternally existent as well. By removing physics, my opponent unknowingly shoots himself in the foot. "As to timelessness, Pro still has not engaged arguments about how agency is not a counter to timeless, instead relying on argument by assertion in an attempt to bypass objections. In a timeless universe no change can happen. No one can stand up, no thoughts can take place, no wills can change. However, pro argues that the man could will something and that would start time." I have twice repeated my response to this and Con has seemed to ignore them each time. Con simply begs the question by presupposing timelessness to be an _essential_ property as opposed to a property that can be had _accidentally or contingently_ (Which is how it is with free agents). There is no good reason to accept this assumption, and Con has not provided us with one.