The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

I thank Con for their response. Con says "If the universe did not exist, then there was no time. My opponent can not say that Earth took seven days to make (as said in Genesis), because no clear God or text has been established and it did not define then how many Earth hours it was." This is a baffling statement, I don't know why Con is bringing up a creation myth, and applying it to me, as if I am arguing for this claim, just baffling, but moving on.......... Con objects to the claim that the non existence of something precedes its existence. Lets look at the possibilities of something that began to exist. Con uses an example of their non existent child, I would ask, if you have this child........ 1) Would you agree that the child has not always existed ? 2) If the child did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where the child did not exist ? 3) Would you agree that that state of reality where the child does not exist, preceded its existence ? If Con objects to this, I would point out, that claiming that something existing before it exists is a contradiction. Therefore something existing can only happen during its existence and after it "began to exist". Something non existence must be the state before its existence", I will try and reword premise 2 to make it clearer what I meant.............. Premise 2) If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist. My opponent has some claims made, in their Nutty Squirrel Argument, I shall now refer to this illustration and claims made within this illustration as the NSA = (N)utty (S)quirrel (A)rgument. In Cons NSA they claim "Nutty, angry squirrels didn't exist past a cell at one point, though that was their existence." This is a composition fallacy http://wiki.ironchariots.org... Lets consider............ 1) Humans are made of atoms 2) Therefore humans are atoms Lets look at Cons argument 1) Nutty angry squirrels are made of cells 2) Therefore angry squirrels are cells This shows the falseness of claiming that the existence of the squirrel is the same as the existence of a cell. Con says "For spirits, it is believed by some scientist that this is what we return to when we die resulting in ectoplasmic images of actual people (ghosts)" Now if Con had said, that people believe in ghosts, that would be one thing, but con claims some scientists, why does Con do this ? It seems to me Con is making a hidden inference that if a scientist believes it, it must be science. Science is based on such things as, predictive power of a modal, repeated observation, testing by others, falsifiability. Is Con claiming that this theory ghosts are caused by a plasma is science ? Con says "For the universe, God was that initial block. You must have to have something in existence to build with before you can build" It seems to me, that Con is claiming that God is some sort of physical substance, that is the first material from which all other materials are made from. Trouble is that claim refutes the definition of God as defined as "immaterial". Con says "Everything must have a beginning, even according to Newton's laws." and "Newton's Laws of Cause and Effect prove and support my theory that there is a cause to the Universe" Ok lets accept Newtons law here, everything has a beginning, if God exists then God has a beginning. This refutes God as being "beginningless" To say their is a alot of mistakes in Con's arguments would be an understatement. I will leave it to Con whether they will drop their arguments and concede them as fallacious or if they continue to defend them as true. I would also remind Con seeing your last comment was "I would again like to stress that the non-existence is not a state. My non-existent child does not have a state- I must create it." If you do have a child........ 1) Would you agree that the child has not always existed ? 2) If the child did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where the child did not exist ? 3) Would you agree that that state of reality where the child does not exist, preceded its existence ? I look forward to Con's reply.