The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Invalid

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate and getting right to the meat of the debate! This will save time for both of us.While this form of the Kalam Cosmological argument means literally the same thing as the Kalam Cosmological Argument Pro attacks, this is the semantic version I will be using:P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existenceP2: The universe began to exist.P3: Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.The Resolution, and Burden of Proof First of all, I'd like to point out the audience that this debate is about the logical validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, not the soundness of the argument. While I was expecting a debate on the soundness of the argument, this should still be an interesting debate. The distinction between logical soundness and logical validity is that logical soundness refers to whether each premise of the argument is correct or not, whereas logical validity refers to the structure of the argument. In Round 1, Pro explicitly states that he will be arguing that even if P1 and P2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are sound premises, the conclusion doesn't logically follow. Therefore this debate will not be centered around the soundness of P1 and P2 of the KCA, but whether the conclusion logically follows.If Pro is unable to show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is invalid, then I have won this debate.Kalam Wars: The Trilogy In Round 1, Con offers an in depth argument for why the KCA is invalid. Con argues that P1, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence", refers to material causes only. He then points out that the Universe must have come into existence from nothing. So how does this make the KCA invalid? Well, friends, because the conclusion then does not apply to P1! It would not logically follow. To illustrate Pro's point, imagine we formulate the KCA the way Pro is interpreting it:P1: Everything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause for it's existence.P2: The Universe began to exist ex nihilo.C: The Universe has a cause for it's existence.This is, of course, an entirely invalid argument! I absolutely agree with Pro that this argument is atrociously bad and no philosopher worth his salt should use this argument in support of anything. However, this is simply not the Kalam Cosmological Argument.Kalam Wars, Episode I: Rise of the Straw Man Notice what was required for Pro to invalidate the Kalam Cosmological Argument. He had to somehow show that P1 referred only to material causes. However, this is simply not how the P1 reads. Let us re examine P1:"Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence""Everything" Everything in this case refers to literally everything. There is no added distinction, such as, "everything in the Universe", or "everything that we see". The word "everything", in context, literally means everything. One could argue that this premise if unsound because the justification for the premise only extends to what we see within the Universe, but this is irrelevant to the debate at hand, as this debate is about the logical validity of the argument and no the soundness of each premise. "Everything", in context, refers to literally everything."that begins to exist"Begins to exist is literally equivalent to "comes into being". Whether something comes into being from a material state, or not from a material state is irrelevant since both came into being. William Lane Craig further elaborates on this by defining "begins to exist" as "x begins to exist if and only if x exists at time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists". It's important to note that even if time does not exist prior to time t when x begins to exist, the definition still applies. This is exactly the manner in which the Universe began to exist in Premise 2. Therefore, no equivocation here! "has a cause for its existence" Now, this is where we come to the crux of Pro's argument. Pro argues that P1 only refers to material causes, whereas the conclusion does not. However, is this so? We see no language in this premise that indicates any sort of discrimination against creatio ex nihilo, and certainly no special affinity towards creatio ex materia. The premise merely reads "Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence". The premise certainly doesn't read "Everything that begins to exist has a materialcause for its existence". In fact, William Lane Craig doesn't define "cause" as creatio ex materia orcreatio ex nihilo. Rather, "cause" is defined as an "efficient cause". That is, that which causes change or motion to occur. Aristotle originally coined the terms as he distinguished between material causes and efficient causes [1]. Aristotle argued that a material cause is just the stuff that something comes from, for example, a piece of wood is the material cause of a table. However, an efficient cause is that which brought the table to come into being. So in the case of a table, the carpenter would be the efficient cause of the table. Therefore we see there is no marriage between material causes and efficient causes. Therefore all equivocation dissolves.Kalam Wars, Episode II: The Republic Attempts to Understand The Straw ManAll of the argumentation that Pro sets forth is better suited for refuting P1, rather then invalidating the entire argument itself. Often Kalam opponents will argue that creatio ex nihilo is impossible, or, that creatio ex nihilo does not require a cause, or, that creatio ex nihilo does not always require a cause. But these are arguments to attack P1, not the logical validity of the entire argument itself! Personally, I have a feeling that Pro became confused about P1 when hearing how P1 is defended. One of the defenses of P1 is to show how literally everything we see in the world has a cause. KCA supporters will argue that we intuitively know that everything requires a cause. This is generally where atheists pop in and say that all observed causes happen ex materia, and not ex nihilo, therefore P1 is not always true. But this is merely a defense of P1, it does not necessarily follow that because one defends P1 by appealing to creatio ex materia, P1 is only referring to creatio ex materia.Kalam Wars, Episode III: The Kalam Cosmological Argument Strikes BackIn summary, Pro is confused about the first premise. "Begins to exist" has no bearing on whether something comes into existence ex nihilo or ex materia, it merely means to come into being. Subsequently, "cause" is defined as "efficient cause" which is in no way married to material causes. Even without these clarifications, the particular wording of the Kalam Cosmological Argument does not agree with Pro's interpretation. There is nothing about the wording used in the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that restricts one to material causes. After all, it's confusing why "begins to exist" should mean "begins to exist from something" and nothing else. Similarly it's inexplicable why "has a cause for its existence" refers to material causes and nothing else. In conclusion, Pro sets up a straw man version of the KCA and then refutes. However, in doing so he has failed to show how the KCA is logically invalid. The conclusion logically follows from P1 and P2. Therefore, the resolution is negated.[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...