The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

Is time necessary for existence?No.P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.My opponent wants to take the abstract notion of causality and existence and reduce them to purely material phenomena. This premise has nothing to do with physical reality. Sure, it is a premise based on observations made within our cosmos, but the premise itself is the product of thought.It is indeed true that what we witness as "a beginning" is physically a transformation of matter and energy. No one is going to dispute that today. Yet, it is also true that abstractly, it is still in fact a beginning. My laptop exists. It's right in front of me. It didn't exist ten years ago. At some point, it began to exist, even though the matter that composes it already existed.No one would try to argue that my laptop has always existed, even before its molecules were arranged into a laptop, for such logic commits the fallacy of composition. But can we likewise say that the laptop never existed, i.e., that what I perceive as a laptop is not a laptop but an arrangement of atoms? I think that's ultimately where Con's logic leads. You see, if cause and existence must be reduced to material explanations, then nothing exists but matter and energy. So, my opponent is in a quandary. If he admits that my laptop exists, then he does so on a purely abstract level, which refutes his assertion that cause and effect is limited to physical transformation.But if he admits that my laptop does not actually exist, then he has abandoned his ability to even reason in this debate, for logic itself is abstract. Moreover, the KCA intends to prove a supernatural cause of the universe, so insisting that only matter and motion exists is to beg the question, which is what happens when he reduces cause and existence to just that. It's an attempt to disprove this premise using what is ultimately decided in the argument's conclusion.It requires far less mental gymnastics to accept P1 as an abstract axiom of truth than to pigeonhole it into something that must be reduced to nature.P2. The universe began to exist.Con feels as though I did not show how an actual infinite is impossible, despite my having explained the paradox in a whole paragraph. He then points out that mathematics and physics often employ infinity. I find it interesting how Con wants to appeal to abstract uses of infinity to refute this premise while rejecting abstract uses of cause and existence to refute the previous one.Infinity is a necessarily abstract entity. I would not dare assert that it has no place in mathematics or physics. Its use in abstract formulas is not in dispute. Looking back, I can see that I assumed the readers would understand that I was arguing that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality.To clarify, there are two types of infinity: potential and actual (or completed). "Potential infinity refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end." This is different from an actual infinity, which is "an infinity that one actually reaches; the process is already done." [1]Imagine the assertion that there are an actual infinite number of atoms in the universe. This is just absurd, for it would mean that the number of atoms could double and yet there would still be the same number of atoms. Moreover, the law of conservation of mass necessarily excludes the notion of an infinite mass of the universe.The same logic, therefore, is applied to time. There simply cannot be an actual infinite number of events, for it would mean that all events have occurred, yet no events have occurred, yet all events have yet to occur, yet no events have yet to occur. The idea is so irrational that if taken to be true it renders science impotent.Thus, any theory presented by physicists that would attempt to show the universe as infinite in time is logically impossible in reality due to the above proof. Indeed, many such attempts invariably involve the use of abstract concepts such as imaginary numbers to make their case, which one again, are not things that describe reality. I cannot send my child to school with 2i apples in her lunchbox.What about those pre-plank cosmologists who argue that spacetime is just an arrangement of the universe? This simply does not escape the problem. Con says these theories posit that time arose from the Initial Energy Density. Arose? Is that not the same as began? I think my opponent just supported the idea that time began.You see, Con cannot help but appeal to the abstract notion of existence when dealing with time itself. In his own words, time itself began. What was the cause? It surely was not the hot dense state itself. For if the hot dense state was timeless, then how could it have given rise to time without changing its state. And if it did give rise to time by changing it state, then time must have existed alongside the hot dense state. And if time existed alongside the hot dense state, then the hot dense state itself must have had a beginning.Either way, Con cannot escape the fact that the universe had a beginning.C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.So long as I've reasonably assured the readers that P1 and P2 hold up under logical scrutiny, then C1 logically follows.P3. The first cause must be eternal.P4. All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal.C2. The universe was caused by a personal creator.I'm actually surprised my opponent dismisses the second half of my argument with a wave of his hand. He asks if I have evidence of a timeless mind. The answer is, I do, and it's the second half of my argument. The timeless mind is the conclusion based on P3 and P4, both of which he ignores. The second half of the argument is a logical one—not a scientific one—so if my opponent is asking for scientific evidence, I'm sorry to disappoint him. I didn't offer any, but that doesn't make it any less true so long as the premises hold up. I gave a logical syllogism showing how the creator must be an eternal personal agent.I will grant my opponent this: if C1 fails, then C2 fails also. So, if he wants to focus on P1 and P2, so be it. But if I reasonably show that C1 is valid, then his decision to dismiss this part of the argument will only work against him.ConclusionThe KCA is tried and true thus far. Con had tried to refute P1 and P2 by resorting to inconsistent philosophies of abstract and real entities. He rejects P1 on the basis of purely physical observations and P2 for on the basis that metaphysical infinities are possible. Such flip-flopping reveals a pre-commitment to naturalism as a worldview, so he has to rationalize away the most parsimonious and rational conclusion: this universe has a cause.Furthermore, Con has not given due attention to the second half of the argument. He's asked for evidence, which is hardly a convincing rebuttal for the evidence was already before him. It will be up to him whether he chooses to address C2 or to bank on his ability to dismantle the arguments for C1.Sources http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu...