The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Russell's ParadoxWell, it seems opponent's main objection to the argument regarding Russell's Paradox is as follows: "However, the universe, in this argument, does not belong to the subset “things,” but “things which begin to exist. ”""Things which begin to exist" would still belong to the set of "things" (like how "apples that get eaten" still belong to the set of "apples"). If the universe had a beginning of it's existence, then it would be a different type of beginning not like a "thing", so it is fallacious to place the universe in the same logical sphere as "things" regarding any causal principles. Also:"I don’t see that Russell’s objection that the universe cannot be a “set” of itself is valid. First, the universe is an actual existent entity, not an abstract concept like numbers. "Merriam Webster defines "thing" in the context we are applying the word to, as "any single entity distinguished from all others: each thing in the universe" , and as also "existing as an individual, distinguishable entity; specif. " [1]Thus, to be a "thing" or "entity" is must be distinguishable from other "things" or " entities" within a larger set containing other "things" or "entities". For example, to say I ate a strawberry is to also say I did not eat a carrot, because these things are distinguishable from one another and must belong to another set (the universe). Since the universe is the set of all things as defined, even if the universe had a beginning of some sorts (which I am not conceding), the conclusion does not follow from the initial premise that every "thing" that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, Russell's Paradox still stands because if the universe is the set of all "things", it cannot itself be a "thing". Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause"When I say this is “uncontroversial,” I mean that it is certainly a scientific concept. Nothing happens without a cause. "This is false, considering many physicists adhere to the acausal principles involved with Quantum Mechanics. A vacuum fluctuation is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi). However, Alexander Vilenkin's model of comic origins [2] describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). Basically, there are equations which rely on acausal principles which could plausibly describe the beginning of the universe. The very fact that these comply with the laws of physics, disproves the claim that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument regarding scientific causality involves a principle that must hold true everywhere. Also:"My door cannot open unless I physically open or the wind blows it open. .. "You are describing events you see occurring within space-time above the sub-atomic (causation) and trying to use it to support a cause existing beyond space-time fallaciously. "Additionally, one would only reject this principle if one has agenda: trying to disprove the philosophical concept that non-being cannot produce being" I could just as easily say, one would only reject the acasual principles acknowledged in quantum mechanics if they had one agenda: trying to disprove any evidence that may contradict argumentation for God. This is not a good argument. Also, I think there is some equivocation going on regarding this "principle" involving two different meanings:(i) Something cannot come from nothing (philosophical and metaphysical)(ii) Pre-existing physical events and situations cause other physical events and situations (scientific, above the sub-atomic level within space-time)My opponent simply has failed to demonstrate that any "causal principle" is universal and applies above the sub-atomic level, or that this principle has any meaning past any hypothetical limits of space-time. P1: The Universe Began To Exist"The Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy. .. "As far as the universe running out of usable energy is concerned (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), my opponent hasn't shown how this indicates beginning of the universe instead of a transition from a perfect symmetry of some kind before it broke. Thus, this argument from Pro does little to ground reasonable belief in a true beginning. "Regarding Con’s argument from how time acts, I don’t think this can actually be proven. "When it comes to the B-Theory of time, there is no "begins to exist at t" (Dr. Craig is correct, the Kalam Cosmological Argument only works if you assume A-Theory). Also, the universe would just exist tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction instead of having an actual beginning. Many scientists, and philosophers believe this view is proven:"It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence. " - Physicist Albert Einstein"…special relativity [by itself] appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe" view. " - Philosopher Rudy RuckerUntil my opponent provides argumentation for A-Theory besides a subjective experience of time, then Pro's whole case is baseless. "Here is where scientists equivocate on the word “nothing. ” In philosophy, “nothing” is literally “nothing. ” It doesn’t even exist. It has no qualities. "Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins involves a universe coming from an empty geometry with no time, space, energy, or anything, as I already explained. (of course if this geometry is timeless, then asking about it's origin is futile according to theistic standards). The laws of physics existed, however, laws are no "thing". Laws describe how "things" act, or could potentially act. Now my opponent says that something cannot come from this metaphysical nothingness, and that it has no qualities. This is contradictory, because saying that something couldn't come from it is ascribing the quality of "being able to prevent something" to this metaphysical nothingness. Pro also implies that "literally nothing" necessarily "doesn't even exist", this would mean however that something necessarily exists, and thus, must exist within a larger set of things to even be some "thing". This would mean the set of all "things" (the universe) is necessary. "It seems that if there was a finite amount of time, then there must have been a beginning. "Well lets assume that A-Theory is true, philosophers such as Atheist Adolf Grunbaum and Theist Richard Swinburne have argued that something only "begins to exist" if there was a time earlier in which it didn't exist (which makes sense based on experience). This wouldn't apply to the universe however, because the Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time, so there could not have been a time earlier in which the universe didn't exist. So there are philosophical reasons to back up this notion, not just scientific reasons from Steven Hawking or from any B-Theorists. Something From Nothing I have made my position clear on this subject in this round already. Conclusion The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically valid, because the universe is not a distinguishible "thing", it is the set of all "things" as defined. My opponent also hasn't met his burden of proof in regards to the first premise, and I falsified the notion that it is self-evident by citing a model of cosmic origins which neglects this causal principle. Pro also failed to show how A-Theory is true (the theory the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests upon), or how the universe had a beginning based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, the resolution seems to be negated. Sources [1] . http://www.yourdictionary.com... [2] Alexander Vilenkin: “tunneling from literally nothing”, 1982,1988 paper