The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

My opponent says: "Even if we accept premise 1 here, that only proves that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, not that the universe it self had a beginning." But that was not the fact I gave. He is creating his own theory with no source. Proven fact states "It's expanding and it has always expanded." Something that expands must have a beginning of expansion. Since it did not according to my fact, then it had to have been created. (God created it) My opponent said: "The claim that the universe did not exist, is a description of reality, and is not giving attributes to something that does not exist yet, in this case the universe" You can only say that AFTER it's existence! You can not say it before! Creation must come first! (God created the universe). My opponent said: "This affirms what I have been saying all along, that something that begins to exist comes AFTER it did not exist." Then if everything exists after it did not exist, then the universe (aka everything) had to have a point where it's existence was created. (God created it) My opponent said: "Now the trouble with this argument, is that in the Kalam argument, that time began to exist too, that time began to exist along with the beginning of the universe." Time had a point of nonexistence. Time is relative. Time was only created by man to calculate measuremental predictability between two or more events. Man created time; not God. (God created the universe; time did not exist with God, for he is omnitemporal) If nothing existed besides God, then there is nothing to base time. If you sit in a dark basement for a long time, you can not calculate the measured predictability of time, because in nothing, time can not exist. You must have a outside influence to base the measurement on. In counterment to your numbered arguements: 1) God existed before the universe 2) Therefore there was a time when the universe did not exist. You know I exist now, so it's easy to say that I had a state of nonexistance, that my existence was going to be fact, therefore I existed. But it's not easy to say "I am going to be a father one day, therefore my child John Smith will exist. Therefore, he exists in a state of nonexistance now." Then daddy-wannabe gets in a car a dies. Does the kid exist in a state of nonexistance, or is he just trapped in that realm? You point out something exists in a nonexistent state unless you're God and you know that. If you're God, then you support my claim. I will answer your questions on the condition you answer mine. If you forfeit the round, you void the answers. 1) Yes, I'd agree that I have not always existed. 2) No, I would not say that I was in a nonexistant state. Let's look at the sentence structure. "I" am a noun; I'm the object of the statement. "Nonexistent state" is what describes me. How can I be described when I don't exist? I can not. Therefore, you should reword your statement to "If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was an idea that you did not exist?" Therefore, the idea is the subject, and the idea is in existance and nonexistence is there to describe that idea of my nonexistence. I am part of the idea, but according to your fallacy, you can't say I exist because I'm part of something. I can't exist without that idea in nonreality. Going back in time to where I did not exist, NO ONE could say that I would exist, therefore, I didn't exist. If someone could say I would exist and I was just not existing at the moment, you would have to be God to know that, supporting my case. 3) No, because I had no state of reality. If I had a state of reality, I would have been a part of reality and existed in it. Since I did not exist in reality, I had no state of reality. So therefore, I could not exist. Something had to create me, a certain event to bring me into existence. I could make brownies from brownie mix. Brownies don't exist yet, but I can predict using my creation of measured time in relation to planetary rotation to the sun to PREDICT they will exist, but I can't know for sure. In twenty minutes, I should have my brownies....BAM! Power goes out. The brownie mix goes bad because it's 3 days until I get power back. Those brownies did not ever exist in nonexistence. I could predict it, but I can never know for fact because I'm not God. I can't make things happen without inciting other events to make it exist. Therefore, I am dependent upon those events to happen and I can't say they exist in nonexistance. Your questions: 1) If something does not exist now, is it in a nonexistent state? No. 2) Are unicorns in a nonexistent state? No. 3) Is the idea existing that they're in a nonexistent state? Yes, the idea itself is. 4) Must the creation of that idea had to happen for the idea to exist? Yes. 5) If everything had a cause of existence, then is it logical to say everything has always existed without cause, without being an omni being? No. God is the only thing that does not have creation. Everything else had creation. God is the cause of that creation.