The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

A & B-Series of time Pro starts by confirming the A-series of time as widespread among layman and only philosophers are divided about it. He says that philosophers are leaning in the direction of the B-series of time after he has admitted they are divided about it. By what has been said already, if valid, the A-series is another adequate ground for accepting the KCA. But we can add another consideration like Zeno's Paradox which supports the A-series theory as opposed to the B-series. Zeno's Paradox It is impossible to have an actually infinite number of things. [1] Zeno of Elea concluded that a plurality of things in the composition of reality is an absurd notion. The existence of such would preclude a singular Reality. Zeno shows that in order to catch up to the future, one must first arrive at the point where the present and past is. If (t) is at 2 then (A) must traverse 1 to catch up. If (t) is at 3 then (A) must traverse 2 to catch up. If (t) is at 4 then (A) must traverse 3 to catch up. .. .. .. .. Consider the mathematical formula expressing the impossibility of reaching the destination on an infinite line: 4 - 1 = 4 It seems to show that an infinite number of midpoints can never be achieved unless the rate of travel is increased. d = rt Given a certain finite distance (d) to be traversed in some length of time (t), then we can calculate how long it would take one to cover (d): r = d/t So, in order for one to catch the future, they must have a rate (r2) exceeding time: r2 > r Any interval that is actually composed of an infinite number of sub-intervals would necessarily be infinite in distance. Zeno's paradox shows that there cannot really be an actual infinite. These considerations rationally force us to suppose that an actual infinite is just an idea in the mind and not something that exists as a property in reality. This is why I said it is just a illusion. [2] Zeno's Paradox & A-seriesIt would be absurd to otherwise say that a finite quantity plus another finite quantity is not always a finite quantity, we could never arrive at infinity. Infinity in this case serves merely as a limit which we never attain. [3] Therefore, I presume nothing here and it is my opponent that assumes B-series as relevant. Again, I do not have to deny B-series, just by simple logic we see that A-series has a valid look at time which supports KCA. "Begins to Exist" I may need to apologize here because I may have misunderstood Pros actual argument. I think I know what he is implying and I will continue on. .. . What Pro still does is deny he exist or anyone or thing for that matter. In this case, Pro has made the problem worse and makes his argument seem more improbable then the second premise. If he tries to say that the universe has always existed then what he is saying is we all have always existed. This means I was not born in 1979 but existed since the Big-Bang blew and formed matter into things. Even though Pro concedes the first premise, it seems he is looking past it. The cause did not create itself because He is a uncaused cause. It is therefore applied that the uncaused cause has to neccasarily exist. I have offered the Big-Bang as a start for the universe and this shows that the universe has a beginning and a cause. Pro says this is unwarranted but if we concede the first premise then it follows that the universe began and also has a cause. "x Begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists and no state of affairs in the actual world in which x exists timelessly. " Pro says this comes off forced but he is just ignoring the first premise. We cannot concede the first premise and then say lets ignore it when we refer to premise two. It is like saying: I caused this round 3 debate by writing it but what caused me to write it. It further says that this round 3 debate that I am writing, exist before I write it. Absurd. So, what could be the cause of the universe, matter, and time? There are two types of realities: 1)Abstract objects or numbers and 2) A mind. We see that objects and matter do not cause any effects in this nature. The only logical conclusion we are left with is that the universe, matter, and time were caused by a mind. [4] Since the universe has either a finite cause or infinite cause, we can rule out that the universe has a finite cause because if the first cause was finite then it is not the greatest of all possible beings. [5] Even if the universe was caused by a finite cause, that cause would require a infinite cause. This breaks down to a infinite cause as the only way to break the chain of causes. Anything that's non-necessary comes to be and passes away so it follows necessarily that things which come to be require a cause. "x begins to exist if and only if x exists at sometime t and there is time prior to t* at which x does not exist. " Pro is correct in saying that i) and ii) are clear necessitates by this equation. But, this equation does not account for meta-physical and physical evidence and it then becomes unreasonable. Pro forces a exclusion and at the very same time, he accuses me of doing the same thing. Though my exclusion resides on actual physical and meta-physical bases and not projected theories. David Hilbert, a mathematician of the 20the century states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea. "[6] If the universe never began to exist, that would mean the number of events in universe is infinite. But mathematicians have shown that the idea of a actual infinite of things leads to contradictions. We have discovered that the universe is expanding, that time, space, matter, and energy appear to have a finite past. There have been numerous scientific papers wrote about how the universe is finite. The astro evidence implies that the universe began to exist in a great explosion called the "Big Bang. " From the very nature of this case shows that the universe has a cause and that cause is, uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial. This cause was before the universe and caused the universe. There cannot be a infinite amount of causes as Pro suggest. Analogy "Knobs, channels, volume, antennas, and a speaker box could be describing an antique radio for all we know. " This is true. This still does not change that those descriptions also describe a TV. Direct Causation "I am arguing that a cause has not even been shown in the first place due to lack of support for Premise 2 of the Kalam. " Pro is being blatantly false here. I have provided the Big-Bang theory for the cause and I have explained why a uncaused cause's cause is neccasary. Conclusion After all this, Pro has not provided any clear cut reason why the KCA is not sound. He concedes many points I have made as to the logical following of each premise and the premises that support them. There is no doubt that Pro has confused the BOP here and who must provide it. My argument is a given from jump and it is Pro who must show it unsound. RESOLUTION AFFIRMED! Back to Pro! RESOURCES: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes [2] . http://sguthrie.net... [3] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] . http://winteryknight.wordpress.com... [5] . http://www.midwestapologetics.org... [6] On the Infinite," in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. Paul Benacerraf and Hilary Putnam (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 151.