The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

As this is my last round I will limit myself to summarizing and clarifying. I should also thank Mr. Madara for his kindness in waiting for the last minute to post his argument once he knew that I would not be able to read it over the weekend. His graciousness recommends him.Logical validityR2: Pro asserted that the argument committed the fallacy of composition, which states that what applies to component parts must apply to the whole (therefore saying that since every object in the universe has a cause we must accept that the universe does as well).I answered that the argument makes no such claim but rather says that the universe as a whole began to exist and must have a cause of its existence.R3:Pro offers that this is inconsistent with the defense of the first premise (see bellow) as saying that we see things come into existence independently of the universe itself contradicts the universe as a whole coming into existence.I answer (in the section on Premise 2) that things coming into existence has no bearing on the universe (time, space, matter and energy) as a whole coming into existence. I further claim that as the contradiction is not apparent, some evidence must be given of it aside from the mere assertion and attempt to clarify by making a distinction between the two first premises; the first claiming that things which begin to exist must have a cause, and the second predicating this "beginning to exist" of the universe as a whole.R4: Con concedes the original objection (on the logical validity) but objects once again to the defense against the objection.I believe the confusion stems from an equivocal use of the word cause. Cause does not mean in every case that all the matter for that object to come to exist, as the matter itself can be included as one type of cause (the material cause) as per R-3. Since this is at the center of the objection to Premise 1 I will address the issue there.Premise 1R2:Pro states that we have never observed anything begin to exist, citing the first law of thermodynamics (the law of Conservation of Energy). All we see is physical, chemical or subatomic change.To this I answer by pointing out that his definition of "beginning to exist" is not the one Al-Gazali was defending. It does not take a modern understanding of physics to know that things we see come into existence do so from a previous state which is the cause of its existence. He, following the Aristotelian view, would recognize the four causes: formal, material, efficient and final.R3Pro says I am conflating "beginning to exist" with "transformation" as everything that the shed of my example is already existed previous to its construction; it was simply rearranged.I admittedly go off on what my opponent was justified in calling a mere rhetorical flourish in an attempt to show that we recognize by common consent that things which surround us have an existence beyond their mere components when I ought to have reiterated and clarified my original rebuttal, as I will shortly do.R4Pro accuses me of dodging the point and reiterates his conviction that our differentiation between a nail and the metal that was used in forging it is a meaningless verbal tag.As I said in my original rebuttal to his objection, the notion of "beginning to exist" we are discussing here is that used by Al-Gazali in formulating his argument, not that which my opponent favors. Something passes from one state into another, but the particular state it is in is itself is a thing which comes to be and which has a cause. The pre-existing matter is simply what would be considered the material cause, to which we must add the formal, efficient and final causes. Arguing the issue apart from the definition given by the man who formulates the argument is to argue against straw men.Premise 2R2Pro informs us of various theories apart from the classical Big Bang theory which could be consistent with an eternal universe and says we need some reason to prefer the Big Bang theory over those in order to affirm the second premise.I argue that the Big Bang theory still answers the available observations more directly and cite Stephen Hawkings, both in speaking of his work with Roger Penrose and citing the second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy) as an objection to both cyclical and static-state models.R3Pro claims the changes to the Big Bang theory over the last few decades are problematic and a simpler theory must be preferred.I argue that the fact that theories are modified over time does not argue against but for them (as in the theory of evolution being increasingly corroborated but modified as well) and show by the objections by Borde, Guth, Vilenkin and Hawkins to these theories cast doubts on the claim that it is in any way simpler.R4Pro claims I made an improper comparison between our cosmological kerfufle and the unpleasantness over Evolution and Intelligent Design, as Occam's Razor only applies to equally plausible hypotheses. He then dismisses the rest of my argument as a "big appeal to authority fallacy"The authority fallacy is that of an improper appeal to authority, citing beloved news anchor Walter Cronkite, for instance, in a conversation on the ideal lunch for a gymnast would be an improper appeal to authority. Speaking of the work of the leading cosmologists on the day whose work centers on the very issue we are discussing and who have no particular axe to grind in favor of the contention I present (Vilenkin is an agnostic, Hawkins a declared atheist, I can find no particular declaration of faith by either Borde or Guth) is a very proper appeal to authority, as appealing to a nutritionist would in our previous case. It is a pity the objection was dismissed offhand, as it serves to show that we are indeed not facing equally plausible hypotheses.Premise 3R2Pro complains that the argument ignores other possible causes of the universe, and posits as one such possible cause the universe itself. Simultaneous causation, he says, is not only possible but necessary if time itself is the effect.I agree that simultaneous causation is at play, but say that a thing cannot be the cause of its own existence because it would have to exist, not necessarily prior in time, but certainly prior in casual relationship in order to produce an effect. I say that the cause would have to be external, immaterial, timeless, unimaginably powerful and would plausibly be personal. This was never addressed.R3Pro insists on time being a possible answer to the conundrum and asserts that the fact that this occurs within absolute nothingness allows for this "self actualization" to occur. He states that this is plausible in spite of the difficulty in grasping it for our limited cognitive faculties.I bring to my opponent's attention that there is no reason to think that the absence of time should negate all laws of causation, and explain in Aristotle's terms that one must have the actuality in order to cause something to move beyond potentiality.R4Pro says that the laws of causation are based on temporal intuitions and are indeed suspect when speaking of the origin of the universe.This is simply not the case. Pro asks us to believe that the fact that time did not exist means that the universe can be caused to exist by a non-existent universe. That is, he expects us to believe that because time does not exist therefore something can come out of nothing. Not out of the low-level energy of the void, not as virtual particles may come into existence within our universe according to certain theorists, out of literal nothingness, not-anything; absent any properties, absent any constraints, absent any powers, absent anything. This requires far more in the way of justification than a glib reference to our "oh-so-limited cognitive faculties". ConclusionWe have seen arguments against the first there premises and the logical validity of the argument. Some have been conceded, others have refuted, and yet others have simply been beside the point. As things stand what we haven't seen is any argument that would support the resolution that the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is unsound. I believe the resolution to be negated and await the opinion of our judges.Before signing off, however, and taking full advantage of the characters I have left, I would like to once again thank my opponent for his condescension (in the positive Latin rather than the negative English sense) with me when I made him aware of my difficulties in continuing the debate over the weekend. I hope this graciousness will be taken into consideration by voters as well, particularly as it did not allow him time to adequately express himself in his final round.