Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

Ave.They're similar in the sense that they both argue that, just because something is true of one thing, does mean it is true of all things. However, the response Dr. Craig gave to my analogy would be wildly off-topic if given in a debate.An axiom is something that is taken to be true without evidence. A spherical Earth wasn't axiomatic. It required observation and argumentation to disprove the idea that the Earth was flat, which was a notion supported by the same intuition that Dr. Craig appeals to when giving the KCA. An axiom can't be debated in the sense that most people feel stupid and irrational for doing so, like doubting mathematical truths. It's inherently irrational to argue against mathematical truths. There is nothing inherently irrational about arguing against the casual principle, or at the very least arguing that it doesn't apply to all things, which I'm trying to do.I don't actually disagree with Spinoza. I haven't even doubted the casual principle in this debate. I've just doubted the universal application that theists are trying to give it. Even if the casual principle is true, it doesn't help the theistic case at all. I can accept that the universe began to exist, that the universe had a cause, and still reject the idea that god caused the universe to exist. I'm just trying to point out that the casual principle isn't as strong or obvious as Dr. Craig would like to think. If it is in fact true, I'm perfectly fine with it, because there's a way around it when it comes to the universe, which I'll get around to later on.I wasn't trying to say that contingency assumes the casual principle. It would be absurd to say something like that. I was trying to argue that, just because energy is contingent (it began to exist), it doesn't follow that it had a cause. That is what would assume the casual principle. The argument is a non-sequitur, because there is no logical connection between 'energy began to exist' and 'energy has a cause of it beginning to exist'.Like the casual principle, I'm fine with accepting the truth of ex nihilo nihil fit. It does not have any implications on the main argument I am giving in this debate, which is that every state of the universe is caused by another state. I'm just objecting to anyone who tries to assert this principle using physics. Philosophically, the principle is well-justified. Appealing to conservation of energy, however, is not necessary.I argued that energy, in physics, comes from nothing. I also argued that this is true if you hold to non-deterministic or deterministic interpretations of quantum phenomenon. Pro tried to argue that I'm actually subscribing to the deterministic Copenhagen interpretation, and that my assertion depends on it. He quoted Robert Koons to try and show this. The only points Koons brought up was that the quantum vacuum isn't a true nothing. This is does nothing to show that my obsevation depended on the Copenhagen interpretation. Pro argues that the quote is still relevant because he mentions the Copenhagen interpretation as an indeterministic one. I'm still wondering why that matters. How does this demonstrate that my observation depended on the Coepnhagen interpretation? I would be depending on indeterministic interpretations if I had argued that that energy comes from nothing without cause. I didn't say such a thing, however. My observation was completely neutral to the two interpretations. Energy can come from nothing with cause, or it can come from nothing without cause. My point was that it came from nothing, and nothing is nothing, Copenhagen or Bohmian.I didn't say that the states stopped at fifteen billion years. I said that there is no state that existed before fifteen billion years ago. You can have 14.9, 14.99, and 14.999, but you can never get to fifteen billion years, because that's when the universe began to exist. The states are infinite, but none of them are older than fifteen billion years. There is no contradiction between an infinite number of states and no state existing before fifteen billion years ago. You have an infinite number of states, but none of them occur before fifteen billion years ago. That is the sense in which the universe 'began to exist'.I have to admit that I've lost track of Pro's form in regards to the lunch argument. Sadly, I don't understand what point is being made here. I'm incapable of answering to him. My apologies.I'd like to remind the audience why this idea is so profound. I can grant every premise of the KCA and still deny that god exists. I can accept that the universe began to exist, that the universe had a cause, and all of Pro's metaphysical principles, and still deny that god exists. This is because I have offered an explanation of the universe beginning to exist that does not entail the existence of god. When you decide who won the debate, please decide it based upon my states of the universe argument. The debates over the metaphysical principles are important, but they aren't relevant to the conclusions the KCA makes, because one can accept those principles and still deny the existence of god.I'd like to review the argument I gave for the states of the universe argument, and show why this argument beats the god hypothesis. I'll restate the premises, the support I gave, and why my arguments were better than Pro's.P1: Every state of the universe is caused by another state. This premise is difficult to deny, and I don't remember any specific part of the debate where Pro disputed it. If T=9 did not exist, then T=10 could not exist, so T=10 is explained by the existence of T=9. You can repeat this exercise with every other state of the universe and come to the same conclusion.P2: If every state of the universe is caused by another state, then an initial state is logically impossible. This follows logically from the first premise. The initial state is a state, but if premise one is true, then the initial state is not initial at all because it needs to be caused another state. Pro said that this begged the question, as it assumes an initial state cannot exist. However, I pointed out that it's not circular reasoning, but a use of deductive reasoning. Pro agreed that I sufficiently cleared up this issue.C: An initial state is logically impossible. This follows logically is P1 and P2 are granted.C2: A first cause can not exist. A first cause would have to cause the initial state in order to be a first cause. By the conclusion, this initial state is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no initial state, and there is no first cause.How can there be an infinite number of states if the universe began to exist? The answer is that no state of the universe, S, existed before fifteen billion years ago. There are states like T = 14.9, 14.99, and 14.9 recurrign, but there are no states where T is 15. That is the sense in which the universe began to exist. Pro argued that this is a contradiction, but I believe I have sufficiently clarified this.Doesn't the big bang singularity show that there was an initial state? Yes, if the big bang singularity needed to exist in moden day cosmology. However, it dissapears once the effects of quantum mechanics are incorporated. Hubble and Lemaitre didn't know about quantum mechanics when the theory was being developed, so it's not too surprising that they thought a singularity needed to be there.In conclusion, I believe that the 'Every state caused by another state' explanation is superior to the god one. I geniunely thank Pro for an interesting and engaging discussion on this issue. I'm not just saying this because it's polite to do after a debate. I seriously mean to say that this was a wonderful discussion, and I look forward to doing something like this with other people.Vale!