The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Thank you again to Con for his rebuttal.I have already given a definition for the universe which shows that it is, in fact, a thing. It is an existence entity to where if all of the individual parts which make it up are to vanish, the thing itself (the universe) would likewise vanish. For an example, a cube is made up of six individual squares. Each square is a thing, but the cube itself is likewise a thing. They are different kinds of things, but they are still things. Additionally, a brick wall is a "thing" just like each brick that makes up the wall is a "thing." Remove enough bricks and the wall will collapse in on itself, ceasing to be a wall.Now, if we are to take scientists' hypothesis that there is a multiverse, then we would, indeed, having something to compare our universe to. In fact, philosophers reason from the concept of "possible worlds" all the time. In this case, the universe would be distinguishable from other universes and belong to another set, the multiverse.Premise 1 -- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.The Copenhagen interpretation is only one of many interpretations of quantum physics. There is no reason to accept this interpretation over the others, which say that everything in the universe has a cause. Also, even if one accepts this particular interpretation, that would only show that the effects seem uncaused, not that they actually are uncaused. After all, the reason we have scientific endeavors is to find answers; the question of where these particles come from may one day be answered. To claim these particles have absolutely no cause is to make an argument from ignorance.If you accept this model of quantum mechanics, it only pushes the problem back a step or two. Where did these quantum fluctuations come from? In fact, why is it only universes and subatomic particles that can come into existence uncaused? Why not trees or Beethovens? Con needs to justify why only particles on the sub-atomic level can come into existence uncaused.Con tries to turn my words around, regarding acausal principles, but it doesn't work. There are reasons to reject acausal principles because we (meaning lay people, not scientists who study quantum physics) don't observe effects happening without a cause. It seems much more reasonable to reject acausal principles than to reject causal principles, due to what we observe in nature.Finally, there is no equivocation on my part, but there is on Con's. He is equivocating the meaning of "comes into existence." From existing materials or from nothing is irrelevant. We see that everything that comes into existence needs a cause, so it is entirely reasonable to suppose to our universe needed a cause of its existence, as well.Premise 2 -- The universe began to exist.The reason this shows a beginning is that if the universe were eternal, it would have always existed this way. Meaning that it would be static, not running out or gaining energy, just eternally existing in the same state. An eternal entity does not change.I am still not convinced that an A-Theory of time is required for the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In the B-Theory of time, the past and future are just as important as the present, but there is still a point in time at which things begin to exist. For example, I was conceived roughly in December of 1980, born in July of 1981. Even if the past is "equally real," it is still incorrect to claim that I existed a hundred years ago. In fact, if we invented a time machine and went back to 1970, I would not exist at that time. You could not look me up and find me. Things still begin to exist (there is a point at which the universe began to exist, there is just no past beyond that point).Con continues to misunderstand the meaning of "nothing." Nothing literally does not exist and has no qualities, whatsoever. It doesn't even have the quality "does not exist." However, the Theist position is not that before the universe there was "absolutely nothingness," since obviously God existed before the universe (causally prior, not temporally prior). Also, the fact that God existed doesn't negate the KCA, since the KCA is concerned with the universe having a beginning. Arguments for God's eternal existence can be found elsewhere. So even before the universe, there was not "absolute nothingness." There was no universe. The universe literally did not exist, and it could not have come into existence (i.e. "from nothing," or "from nonbeing") on its own.Now, considering Grunbaum's and Swinburne's rebuttals to the argument, there may not have been a "time" in which the universe didn't exist (since time didn't begin before the universe), but there was a point at which it did not exist. This was causally prior, not temporally prior, to the universe's creation.ConclusionThe KCA is a valid argument. Con's assertion that the universe is not a "thing" is simply baseless. The premises have been affirmed.