The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is False

I know this is going to be a good debate. : )Rebuttal:Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause " I've expanded upon this premise earlier. A baby begins to exist, it comes from a mother. A computer comes from a factory. The factory also began to exist, humans created it. " Yes! I agree! A computer definitely comes from a factory. A baby begins to exist, it obviously comes from a mother. However, I don't see any equivalence. I accused the argument of committing logical fallacies in my opening statement. Here are the two fallacies 1 - Fallacy of composition: Let me explain what a fallacy of composition is. It goes as follow: P1: A is part of B P2: A has property X C: Therefore B has property X!Ok, let's apply this reasoning to something that we can test the validity of. P1: Cells are part of my body P2: My cells replicate (or divide) C : Therefore, I replicate!I think that's self-evidently false. Starting with two completely sound premises, using the fallacy of composition, I arrived at a terrifying envisioning of self-cloning. So the argument fails when it applies the property of objects within the univese, to the universe itself. You defended the first premise by giving an example of a baby or a computer, which are objects in the universe and do not apply to the universe. 2 - Fallacy of equivocation: I'll give a brief definition of equivocation. Equivocation is "using an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading." Now, I would like to explain why the argument commits equivocation. The term 'begins to exist' is the confusing factor of the argument. Here are the reasons why: a. The 'beginning to exist' of everything we can observe around us is actually just the rearrangement of the already existing atoms. For example, the atoms that make up a fetus already existed prior to the fetus's existence. Another example, when a computer 'begins to exist', the atoms that make up the computer do not just 'pop into being' out of nothing; but rather the already existing atoms being reformed into the shape of a so-called computer. Therefore, the correct thing to say is that everything begins to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms, has a cause. So, the Kalam argument should be rewritten more precisely as follow: P1: Everything within the universe begins to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms, has a cause. P2: But the universe began to exist as a result of the creation of space-time, energy, and atoms (or matter). C: Therefore, the universe had a cause.And that's the Kalam argument filtered out the fallacies. As you can see, the conclusion does not follow. Even if the universe began to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms, then it actually implies that the universe is eternal because atoms existed even before the Big Bang. Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist " For example, if the Universe has always existed, we'd be out of usable energy by now, since there cannot be an infinite amount of energy. Also, the Big Bang did happen." Cosmology is not my domain so I dare not claim anything about the origin of the universe. I neither claimed that the universe was beginningless or that it had a beginning. The point I made earlier was that "human logic cannot be used to prove that the universe can't be eternal." I argued that argument like "if the Universe has always existed, we'd be out of usable energy by now, since there cannot be an infinite amount of energy" does not work for the universe. Here are he reason why: 1. Logic is man-made: a. I think you agree with me on this point. Logic is not the absolute true in the universe. Rather logic is something that evolved along with human, it is a tool invented by human that reflects the patterns of the surroundings. A better way of describing logic is that it is a language developed to describe what is true of the world around us. 2. If logic is man-made and reflects only what human have experienced, then it cannot be applied to something that we have never experienced such as the universe. A bit in computer science can be thought of as a variable that can be assigned 2 values, either 0 or 1. The third law of the three fundamental laws of logic affirms this. The law of the excluded middle states "either P or non-P". According to the third law of logic, a bit can be either 0 or 1. If it's 0 then it can't be 1. Now, quantum computation says a bit to be both 0 and 1 simultaneously. That of course defies the law of the excluded middle states. But does that mean it is not possible? No. It actually implies that the laws of logic evolves over time to fit with the reality we are living in. You defended the second premise by saying that "the unvierse has to be finite because you cannot have an infinite amount of energy." You have never experienced an actual infinity does not imply that it doesn't really exist! Yes!! I agree!! That you cannot have an infinite amount of energy on Earth! But can the universe has an infinite amout of energy? We don't know yet, but asserting no, is simply unsound. There are many infinity-related argument that is theoretically impossible but experiment shows otherwise. Quantum physicists recently suggested that the universe is eternal. It may be or may not, I dare not say anything. Conclusion I think that's enough arguments to demonstate my point that: Showing that the universe has a cause and the impossibility of an eternal universe that way doesn't work.Cited works:https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...http://www.skepticalraptor.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...