The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

"My opponent in this debate comes up with some very interesting and completely unprovable statements which are not demonstrable in any sense. " - ProMy opponent claimed that nothing I said was demonstrable. This is ironic, as my opponent did not demonstrate that his assertion here is true. It just remains a bare-assertion. "However, it is very easy to demonstrate that everything does have a beginning, and a cause. " - Pro I await the reasoning to support the above. "B theory, which I confess I had never before heard of, does not truly have any rational basis in it. " B-Theory does have a rational basis. If it did not, then why are most philosophers who have an opinion on the metaphysics of time B-Theorists? Are they all irrational? A survey was done on 932 philosophers, and most the ones who had an opinion about the philosophy of time adhere to B-Theory[1]. Even A-Theorists themselves, like Dean Zimmerman, admit the fact that A-Theory has little support in the philosophical community:"The A-theory is almost certainly a minority view among contemporary philosophers with an opinion about the metaphysics of time. ” - Dean ZimmermanMost physicists are B-Theorists as well, because of Special Relativity. Einstein's theory has been tested time and time again, and has passed flying colors. The most scientifically feasible interpretation of this theory is the Minkowski space-time view[3]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[4]), and it has more explanatory rigor with regards to time dilation and length contraction than other interpretations. This interpretation proves B-Theory but spells death for A-Theory, because A-Theory entails a universal "now" moment. The Minkowski space-time view entails that there is no universal "now" moment, and is the most scientifically sound interpretation. “[T]he theory of relativity conceives of events as simply being and sustained relations of earlier and later, but not as 'coming into being'” - Adolph GrunbaumNothing comes into being under B-Theory. This means, that the universe could not begin to exist if this theory is true, because the universe is something. So, most philosophers who have an opinion on the metaphysics of time seem to be B-Theorists, but more importantly, B-Theory is more supported by A-Theory scientifically. This shows not only that B-Theory have a rational basis; it is probably correct based on everything we know scientifically! Thus, my opponent's claim that B-Theory has no rational basis is nothing more than a bare-assertion, and embarrassing hand-waving to the furthest extent. "However, even were it to be true, it still had a beginning" - ProYes, the universe would still have a beginning of B-Theory is true. However, it wouldn't begin to exist, or come into being. The universe having a beginning, is not the same as the universe beginning to exist. "From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived. " - William Lane Craig[5]If B-Theory is true, it would be metaphysically impossible for the universe to come into existence, as it would exist tenselessly as a 4d or n + 1d space-time block. The Big Bang would just be at the beginning of the block, but the block would never come into being. Imagine an eternal ruler. It has a first inch (a beginning), but the ruler doesn't begin to exist, or come into being as it is eternal. "Quite simply, and completely logically, something caused this proto-universe, for want of a better term, to change its state into what we see around us today. "If B-Theory is true, then there is no change. Change requires temporal becoming, but temporal becoming is just an illusion if time is actually tenseless. Thus, my opponent's objection here holds no weight; change wouldn't be ontologically real if B-Theory is true. "Change" at best would mean that one point on the block is earlier than, or later than another point on the block with reference to some point. However, reality would be ontologically immutable. "Another factor is that the only way B theory could apply is if it existed in its static form before time existed. Therefore, it's beginning coincided with the beginning of time. " - ProB-Theory posits that time is static, and non-dynamic. Also, the idea of a "before time existed" is logically contradictory. "Before" means "a time prior", there cannot be a time prior to the existence of time. Since my opponent's objection above violates the logical law of non-contradiction; it can be dismissed. "Thus I find it impossible for the proposition not not to be both true and valid. " - ProNot only is it possible, it is probably true as I have demonstrated using Special Relativity. This means, that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably false necessarily. "My previous illustration of the chicken and the egg indicates that everything does indeed have a beginning. " - ProThe above made me chuckle outloud. My opponent's conclusion that everything has a beginning does not follow from any chicken and egg illustration. This is a non-sequitur. It is also a self-refuting position as God belongs to the set of "everything". However, God by definition does not have a beginning in any sense. "There are so many other things that illustrate the idea of things having a beginning. " - ProJust because things have beginnings, that doesn't mean that everything has a beginning. This is a non-sequitur. Conclusion The second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on A-Theory being true. Pro did not show that A-Theory was true. Therefore, Pro has not met his burden of proof. I went above and beyond my burden of proof, and actually showed that B-Theory is most likely true based on what we know regarding science. This means the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably false. The resolution has been negated; entirely. Sources [1] . http://philpapers.org...[2] . http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[5] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184PS. Just a reminder to my opponent, that in his next round me just simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed. "My opponent failed to follow the rules by not posting his first argument in Round 1. Hopefully he respects the rules I laid out and does not respond with an argument in Round 4.