The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Thank you Con for your response, and again sorry about the delay as it seems like life gets busy when you want to sit down for a minute.I want to restate this last round with my resolution:The Kalam Cosmological Argument is logically sound, and provides solid evidence of the Universe having a cause that is thus far best described as being God.In this resolution I stated that thus far the cause is best explained by God. I did not say that the cause is absolutely proven by the KCA to be God but rather that he is thus far the best suitor for the cause. No other entity has been appropriated the over all power to be the sufficient cause for the universe. The universe as shown through the KCA shows us a personal, unembodied mind that is extremely powerful and intelligent. This argument does not provide the maximal power that God is claimed to have, but He is the best fit in accordance to the attributes that can be attained from the argument. Some might even argue that to the separation from non-existence to existence is infinite and it takes an infinitely powerful being to bridge the gap. I referenced Ockhams Razor in that the only entity said to exist external of space-time, yet space-times creator is God and therefore, if the KCA is true, gives us a sufficient cause. To speculate about other personal causes with the said power to create existence is unnecessary. Ockham’s Razor is completely justified in this scenario as even Con states, “In other words stick to what is necessary and don't add what is unnecessary.”So as the KCA doesn’t fully prove God with all of his attributes. However God is the best fit into the description of the cause that can be derived from the argument. Another space-time occupied by the cause / GodCon asks why God, or the cause of the universe, can’t exist from a time and space separate from our own. Well the answer is that He probably could but again these are “what if?” questions. Space and time are related to the physical world and it’s relation to itself. As I have stated before an infinite amount of time, or space cannot exist in that absurdities would arise in the form of contradictions. These contradictions would disprove the existence of such an infinite space-time. So yes he could take part in another space, and another time system, but overall He must be separate in that He is timeless. The same reason why we can conclude that God is space less and timeless from the KCA can be associated with another system. Although these things are nice to speculate, they are off topic. These arguments are better proven through versions of the Ontological Argument. For now let us stick with things we know such as the existence of this universe and what is indicated by it’s existence. The Personal CauseLet me give two lines of logic to show person hood to the cause of the universe:1. The cause as stated before must be external of space and time. Now only two things could fit that description: abstract objects like numbers, or an unembodied mind. Next we look at the two and associate the outcome (existence). Numbers cannot create but do exist outside of time and space. Abstract objects are completely causally impotent. Therefore it follows that the cause is an unembodied mind (person hood).2. A problem arises when we consider the cause being timeless and causing a temporal effect. How can the cause being timeless be the cause of temporal effects? As Dr. Craig says in his book Reasonable Faith, “How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present.”[1] The idea of an effect that is not of the same state as the cause shows the ability to have intent, and then decide to act on that intent which shows choice. The ability to choose gives us a reason to believe the cause is a personal one.An Unembodied MindCon stated I had no reply in response to him stating that religious assertions are unverifiable. The problem isn’t that I didn’t reply to this. The problem is this was never my argument in the first place. I was saying that religious assertions are logically invalid other than for the individual utilizing them. Now I was saying that the only evidence that states an unembodied mind is impossible is mere assertions. Likewise I was pointing out that the religious also assert that it can and does exist. Both assertions hold no weight in logical debate and can be thrown out. However, arguments such as this one, the KCA, provide good evidence through deductive logic that an unembodied mind can and does exist. So it’s not that I had no reply to his questions, but it was Con misunderstanding my statements earlier and then demanding an explanation of something I never asserted in the first place. In fact I commend my last round argument for an unembodied mind to you Con as I clearly stated this point of view along with giving reasons why the use of inductive logic with bodied minds is invalid. Something From NothingCon says here I am arguing from ignorance. However on the contrary I have given philosophical and logical reasons why nothing only comes from nothing. For this I commend round 2 to you where I spelled out my defense of premise one and gave these reasons for this philosophy. All Con has done to attack premise one is ask how do we know there isn’t other stuff outside of this universe? The problem here Con is your playing a “what if?” game. These are simply distractions to the reader. There is no evidence for any of these things. I’m not saying it’s not possible, but in a logical debate consisting of known truths your “what ifs?” are pointless. You quote my statement about why we have good reasons to believe these things don’t happen and ask what these reasons are? The problem is you neglected the next statement I made immediately after saying, “Or if it does happen we have philosophical reasoning to believe that it was caused by a being that can bridge the gap between nothing and existence." You have to read my argument as a whole and not take a sentence out to best suit your rebuttal. Also you state that I concede to the fact that nothing can come from nothing. I never did this, but I was saying it is potentially possible for things to exist outside of our universe. Never did I say that if there is other physical existences outside of our universe that it was an exception to the rule of having to have a cause. So yes, the universe as a whole requires a cause. Beginning to ExistCon states that there has to be a time where something didn’t exist for it to begin to exist. For one I don’t concede to this. I state if something can be traced back to a 0 point then it had a beginning. For something to begin to exist it must come from not existing. Time in the temporal sense began to exist from a timeless state. We can see when we rewind the cosmological clock that it had a zero point and therefore came from a timeless state. ConclusionThe universe had a cause. I have shown as a result of this certain attributes that can be seen to be present in the cause. I have also shown how these attributes are best summed up into the existence of God. I want to thank Con for his insightful arguments and accepting this debate. I hope you have enjoyed it as well. To the voter I ask for you to look at the evidence presented and see where the logic takes you. I feel the evidence is in strong support of a cause, and that cause being God. Hope you enjoyed reading this debate as much as I did partaking in it.Sources in comments.