The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God is Sound

Firstly, I wish to note that my opponent has not responded to my argument for the impossibility of an actual infinite nor my argument from thermodynamics. Very briefly, the existence of an actual infinite (See my OP for a definition of what an actual infinite is) is impossible because inverse operations of mathematics involving actual infinites entail contradictory answers. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, you get contradictory answers. Therefore, the existence of an actual infinite is metaphysically impossible. If the universe had existed for eternity, then its past duration would have been actually infinite. Since actual infinities are impossible, the past duration of the universe must have been finite. According to the second law of thermodynamics, had the universe been existing for eternity, it would have attained maximum entropy buildup. However, since the universe has not attained maximum entropy buildup, it cannot have been eternal. "This is an unsupported assertion. Current scientific thought holds that prior to the causation of the universe, there existed a singularity which we can only speculate about since it existed outside of this universe" This is not true at all. The initial singularity was not in space-time, but instead, constituted a boundary to space-time itself. [1] There was no "before" the big bang since time (At least, physical time) itself began to exist in the big bang. This in turn implies that space-time began to exist. According to P. C. W. Davies: "If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation of not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself. " [2] This also implies that there were no antecedent conditions "prior" to the big bang. I will not respond to my opponents second argument as I do not believe that the initial singularity was a mathematical object. "[T]he timelessness of a pre-universe state necessitates a personal agent because only personal causes can be timeless and create temporal effects. This is an unsupported assertion and I have no need or desire to grant it. " As we have already established, the universe had an absolute beginning which marked the first moment of time and the universe had a cause. However, since the beginning of the universe marked the first moment of time, its cause must be timeless. But how could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect? If the necessary and sufficient conditions that produced the universe were eternal, then the universe must have been eternal too, but obviously we know this is not the case. Craig offers the following example: "Let's say the cause of water's freezing is sub-zero temperatures. Whenever the temperature falls below zero degrees Centigrade, the water freezes. Once the cause is given, the effect must follow, and if the cause exists from eternity, the effect must also exist from eternity. If the temperature were to remain below zero degrees from eternity, then any water around would be frozen from eternity. But this seems to imply that if the cause of the universe existed eternally, the universe would also have existed eternally. And we know this to be false. " [3] The solution for how a timeless cause can give rise to a temporal effect can therefore be found in agent causation. Given this, the cause of the universe is a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about conditions that are not previously present. A timeless cause therefore freely chooses to bring about a temporal effect. Hence, the cause of the universe is timeless, but the effect is not. Therefore, the cause of the universe must have been a personal cause. "There very well could have been time involved, just not our time in our time-frame. " Absolutely, but this is completely irrelevant. Defenders of the KCA (such as Craig) are receptive to the possibility that sans creation, there was metaphysical time. But we are not talking about metaphysical time, instead we are talking about the physical time that began in the big bang. Secondly, this seems to presuppose a B-theory of time, to which my opponent has not justified. "Perhaps Apologician addresses this in his phrase "Moreover, the cause must transcend space both matter and time to create both matter and time. " " I think it what I said was pretty evident, even if I did manage to jumble a few words while typing. So, let me restate it: The cause must transcend matter, space, and time in order to create matter, space, and time. "An argument that relies on fluctuating and/or inaccessible data to support its premises and conclusion is a bad argument, and should be rejected. " I see no reason to accept such stringent criteria, and from a little reflection this turns out to be absurd. According to the criteria that my opponent has offered, we should reject most of modern science on the basis that theories tend to change with the discovery of new evidence. Science fluctuates all the time, but it progressively gets better and better precisely due to these fluctuations, which help to separate truths from falsehoods. So, on the contrary, these fluctuations are a sign of progress. If the KCA is truly valid, then we should eagerly away these fluctuations in the hopes that advances in science will further confirm the KCA. Dismissing it on the basis that scientific data tends to shift is simply bad logic, for it rules out the successfulness of the argument a priori. Finally, the data behind the KCA is, on the contrary, very straightforward and accessible to layman. The concept of the argument is fairly easy to grasp. It only gets muddy if one conducts an extended analysis of the premises (As we are attempting to do). Moreover, the fact that an argument relies on technical evidence has no bearing at all on its soundness. Pragmatically, this might be the case, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the premises. Hence, my opponent is not warranted in rejecting the KCA simply because it is too technical. I will not respond to my opponents section titled "Heads You Win, Tails God Exists" because I do not endorse any of the counter-arguments that he erects in place of the theistic position. I do not believe that the KCA is ultimately based on faith. "As stated, the Kalam Cosmological Argument could be an argument for Allah; Atum; Brahma; Jehovah; God; Ranginui and Papatuanuku; Rod; or Vishvakarman. Nor does it rule out the possibility of multiple causes working together at the same time. With such a wide variety of interpretations in addition to supporting the capital-G God, it should be dismissed. " This is completely irrelevant to my argument. I never offered the KCA as an argument for the existence of the Christian God, but simply a monotheistic conception of God. My goal is rather modest: to demonstrate the existence of a personal being. Regarding multiple causes, they can simply be ruled out through Ockham's razor, since they multiply entities beyond necessity (Unless my opponent wants to show that multiple deities are necessary -- a tall task to accomplish). I thus conclude that my opponent's objections ultimately fail. Thus, the KCA remains sound. ___________ SOURCES: [1]. Craig and Sinclair, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument", in TBCNT, pp. 129-30 [2]. Davies, as cited by Ibid. [3]. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, IL: Crossway. 1994) pp. 117