The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

Pro concedes my first premise and instead just focuses on premise two and the B-theory of time. A & B-Series of Time First, I would like to say that my opponent is correct by saying that the KCA argument hinges on the A-series of time. This is in fact a thoroughly explained premise of KCA and I seen no reason to bring it into question but I will explain it and cover my opponents remarks. We should begin by defining the A & B series of time properly. [1] Philosophers of time have two broad views of time, which are the A & B series. In the A-series of time there is a real difference between past, present, and future. The present exist but the future is not yet real and the past no longer exist. To be temporal means you come into existence and go out of existence. [2] This is the common sense view of time, almost everyone has this view and it follows with premise one my opponent conceded. The B-series of time says that there is not really any difference in the past, present, and future. It says that the past, present, and future are all equally real. It says things like future marriage, our deaths, vacations we take, and what we will eat next week, are all as real as right now. The problem here is that though these things could become real, they are not yet. It further says that even the things in the past have not vanished into non-being and are still as real today. The problem with this theory is that it is just a illusion. Like right now, we all know the present is 2013 but for people in 2050, they are in 2050 and we are from the past. The difference in these theories is that, B-series states, "there is no temporal beginnings. " In this theory nothing comes in and out of being, they are just real. Now how does this impact the argument of KCA? We know from my first premise that whatever exist has a cause and therefore the universe has a cause. This first premise underlines the A-series in that we come into being. When everything that begins to exist has a cause, means that nothing can come into being without a cause. Nothing can just pop into existence, they need causes to make them exist. By conceding the first premise my opponent therefore concedes the A-series. [3] This is because in the B-series nothing ever comes into being and therefore cannot be aligned with the first premise. This means that even though the B-series can have some actual truth, it is a illusion. It has nothing to do with coming in and out of existence because everything exist at the same time. The B-series therefore can not follow with the first premise that my opponent has already conceded. My opponent assumes I must show the B-theory false to make the A-theory true and ultimately the KCA valid. This is not the case. By the logic Modus Ponens, we have a conclusion that follows necessarily. Premise one is true and A-theory follows premise one and B-theory can not follow. I do not have to show that the B-theory is false or untrue because it can be truth in projection but not in temporal reality. Our natural deduction with our premise one, follows that the A-theory is in play. "Begins to Exist" My opponent gives us the argument on the meaning of 'coming into being. ' The argument equivocates on the "begins to exist. " 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause means 'from a material state. ' 2. But, The universe began to exist means not from a 'material state. ' Everything that has a beginning has a cause and the universe came into being so therefore it has a cause. x Begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is not time t* prior to t at which x exists. This example is adequate in all actual purposes because it allows time itself to begin to exist. But, I will offer a more clear example: 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. Just to address further the argument that Pro makes, he objects, nothing ever begins to exist, the material precedes it, it is not true that the universe began to exist. He asserts, though carefully, that nothing ever begins to exist. Do we ever exist? If we do, is it here, then, or there? This is argument is absurd as it gives possibility that we do not exist. We should believe that we exist or we could never find purpose for debating anything. This argument simply confuses the thing from the material in which it is made up of. Just because the material in which something is made has always existed does not mean the thing has always existed. This presupposes that everything has a material cause but it still is irrelevant of the first two premises of the Kalam. Even if it was then it would require proof for it and my opponent has already said, "The logical validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument will be assumed. " Therefore he must provide the proof of this argument. What we can not say or just assume is that the universe had neither a sufficient cause or material cause without proof. I remind you that there is no metaphysical impossibilities involved for a sufficant cause without a material cause. It is always possible to add another event to history, which means the history of the universe is a potential infinite but can never be an actual infinite. [4] Analogy Pro gives us a analogy about a TV having to show that it is electric and has moving pictures to show us that it is a TV. This is false. There could be a number of reasons why the TV shows us that it is a TV beyond being electronic and moving pictures. Like knobs for channels, volume, antennas, and a speaker box. Furthermore even if those were the only two options for knowing a TV is a TV, then it still does not follow that the TV is not a TV just because one of the premises can not be known. Thought experiment: God exist changelessly alone without the universe, is timeless. Time comes into existence at creation and has a beginning and is finite in the past. So God exists timelessly without creation and temporally since the moment of creation. Scientists do not deny causation at all. They suggested four types of causation and I offer direct causation. Direct Causation Direct causation is related to the concept of God (natural or personnel cause), which is associated with nature and natural relations. [5] A free agent can get a temporal effect from a changeless cause. We can say that a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have willed to bring the world into being and it does not imply that there was time prior to that moment. What timelessness entails is that one doesn’t do anything different, that is, that one does not change. [6] Time is at best a measure of time rather than time itself. It should exist outside of physical time (time as defined in the General Theory of Relativity) because it is a boundary point of space time rather than a point in or of space time. Accordingly, it requires a cause for its origination. [7] Conclusion I would like to remind readers that my opponent has took all the BOP off myself in this debate and came right out and took it upon himself. I presented my argument without giving every detail because it was on my opponent to show my case incorrect and not vice verse. He brought a argument that naturally follows premise one. He offers a bad objection about 'begins to exist' and was incorrect that I did not offer a metaphysical and supernatural cause. RESOLUTION AFFIRMED! RESOURCES: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . http://www.leaderu.com... [4] . http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org... [5] . http://www2.lse.ac.uk... [6] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [7] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...