The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Logically Sound

I do apologize for the delay in getting in my first argument. While I would love to say it was because I have a life, or that I was doing something important. The fact of the matter is that I was playing Minecraft. Please enjoy the music to occompany you as you read this debate. It's by one of my favorite bands, thus I know you'll like it! Burden Of ProofObviously, as Pro I have assumed the BOP in this debate. Thus Con must either refute my arguments supporting the resolution, or show how my arguments are irrelevant to whether the resolution is correct or not. Regarding the conclusion: It is not necessary that the conclusion be a god. While once you ascertain that the universe has a cause, I consider it very easy to show that that cause is God, proving that the cause is God or even proving what that cause is is irrelevant to this debate. IntroductionA long time ago there was a guy who wanted the prove the existence of God and blah blah blah. Now we're here debating the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is as follows: P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence. P2: The universe began to exist. C: Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence. The Simple and Logically Cohesive Nature Of The KCALogically, there is nothing incohesive about the Kalam Cosmological Argument as it follows modus ponenus inference. Essentially this means that the argument contains merely two premises and one conclusion. Such logical arguments can be simplified as follows: P1: If p is true, then q is true. P2: p is true. C: Therefore q is true. If the first two premises are true, then it logically follows that the conclusion is true. If one of the premises is not true, then the conclusion is not true. Thus, assuming that the two premises are true, there is nothing explicitly unsound about this argument. As it logically follows that if Premise 1 and 2 are true that the Conclusion is true. Defending P1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A CauseWe know that this premise is true both through inductive reasoning and by intuition. Everything that we experience that has a beginning of it's existence has a cause for it's existence. For example, all of the inventions that have aided mankind over the years have been the product of an inventor who invented those inventions. The act of inventing those inventions was the cause for those inventions' existence. Therefore those inventions had a cause for their existence. This same rule applies to all things that we see exist. If it were not a basic rule, then we would be seeing human beings, planets, clocks, and all sorts of strange things popping into existence uncaused. In fact, the inverse of this premise, which would be "Nothing that begins to exist has a cause" is so incredibly false that it just now made me fall out of my chair. If this premise were true, then once again, why aren't things popping into existence uncaused? Or, one could imagine another inverse of this premise which would be: "Nothing that exists began to exist", which is even worse! If this were true, then neither I nor Con ever began to exist! In fact, we have always existed! If this is true, then why can't I remember the dinosaurs? Can Con remember the dinosaurs? If so, what were the like? It would probably benefit the paleontology community if he would tell them. Defending Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist:The Philosophical ArgumentIf the universe (and/or singularity before the big bang) never began to exist, then essentially the very existence of the universe is a paradox. If the universe/singularity has always existed then essentially time has always existed. If this is true, then there has been an infinite amount of time for all events to take place. This is a problem because it begs the question: If there has been an infinite amount of time for right now to take place, why is it that right now is happening right now? Assuming (for the sake of argument) that it took the singularity that existed before the Big Bang a hundred years to undergo the natural processes that caused it to begin expanding, then why is it that the Big Bang took place at a fixed point in time? If the Big Bang happened a hundred years ago, then I must assume that the singularity began the processes that started the Big Bang two hundred years ago. However, two hundred years ago, the singularity had already had a hundred years to begin expanding. Thus I must assume that the Big Bang happened two hundred years ago, and the processes began three hundred years ago. But wait! Three hundred years ago, the singularity had already had a hundred years to begin the processes that would've caused it to begin expanding! This goes on and on to an infinite regress to the point where the Universe would've never begun to exist at all. This is very similar to the paradox of Hilbert's Hotel [1], which postulates that an actual infinite can not exist. The paradox essentially goes as follows: There is a hotel that has an infinite amount of rooms. All of the rooms are occupied. Along comes Tim and Tim wants to stay in the hotel. To accommodate Tim, the receptionist moves the guy in Room 1 to Room 2, and the guy in Room 2 to Room 3, and so on. This makes room for Tim. However, this is the paradox! If all of the rooms are full, then there is no room for Tim! However, because the rooms are infinite, there is room for Tim! Thus, coming from a purely philosophical standpoint, we know that the universe must have a beginning. The Scientific ArgumentFurthermore, science has confirmed these claims in various ways: Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy [2] the cosmic microwave background radiation [3] red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us [4] helium/hydrogen abundance predictions [5] star formation and stellar lifecycle theories [6] the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars [7] Essentially, these confirmations support the Big Bang Theory which claims that the Universe does, in fact, have a beginning. The red-shifting light, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. all give evidence to support that theory the universe is expanding, thus all philosophical and scientific evidence proves that the universe has not always existed in a static state. ConclusionSince P1 is true and P2 is supported by both philosophy and science, then the Conclusion logically follows. Thus I think it's safe to say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a logically sound argument that proves the universe has a cause. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org......[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org......[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org......[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org......[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org......[6] . http://en.wikipedia.org......[7] . http://www.nobelprize.org......