The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Definition Of Begins To Exist"it means that at a moment in time something did not exist, and later it came into existence." - ProHowever, what if the first state of the universe was the first moment of time itself? This means, there couldn't have been a time before that in which the universe was non-existent. Thus, the universe did not begin to exist under this very definition. If Pro wants to use this definition, then he must show that there was a "prior" to the universe at which the universe = out of being. This has not been accomplished. For all we know, the first state of the universe was the first moment of time itself (making a "temporally prior" to that logically impossible). Since Pro did not rule this possibility out, then by this definition; the beginning of the existence of the universe has not been established.B-Theory"The B-Theory as explained by Con proposes that the universe is a four-dimensional space-time block that simply exists tenselessly. It serves no purpose, goes through no changes of any kind, and ironically "emerges" in a completed state." - ProThe above is incoherent. A B-Theory universe doesn't "emerge", a B-Theory universe just exists tenselessly eternally. My opponent then goes on to say:"Now, I ask a simple question... if the universe itself has no cause, and did not begin to exist, can anything within the universe have a cause or begin to exist? No. You see, if the universe is a four-dimensional space-time block, that was not caused and did not begin to exist... then it logically follows that no aspect or part of that block could have been caused or begun to exist either. Why? Because if the universe existed in a complete state from its starting point, then no part of it went through a process of becoming and no part of it was caused." - ProThe above is correct. However, this undermines B-Theory none. B-Theory acknowledges that change and causality as we know it do not ontologically exist; they are just illusions of consciousness. Pro has not shown why this is a problem. "A finite past would suggest that the universe is inside something in the same way that we are inside the universe." - ProPro has not shown how a finite past suggests anything of the sort. Therefore, this remains a bare-assertion, and can be dismissed. Why couldn't the universe just be self-existent and self-explanatory, without needed to be inside anything?My opponent did not even come close to undermining B-Theory. Pro also completely ignores my scientific argument in favor of it in the last round. Since B-Theory remains unscathed by Pro's objections; it stands. Thus, I have shown the universe probably did not begin to exist indirectly. A Finite Past =/= A Coming Into Being"I appreciate the pictures Con has provided to "prove" how the universe didn't come into being" - ProThe above is a straw-man. The pictures don't "prove" the universe did not come into being. The pictures show that a universe can have a finite past, but not come into being. Thus, more has to be established than a finite past before we can say the universe began to exist. Pro completely misses the entire point of the diagram. "There is self-evidently no logical or metaphysical link requiring that a house with a finite past, comes into being necessarily." - ProThe above is absolutely correct. We know that the house began to exist, because before the first state of the house, the house did not exist. However, the universe as a whole is different because there is no reason to think there even is a "before" the universe. Regardless, this is fallacy of composition from Pro. Even if everything inside the universe that has a finite past, began to exist; it wouldn't follow that if the universe as a whole has a finite past, that it began to exist. "It seems therefore that it is indeed self-evident that something with a finite past, comes into being." - Pro It is only self-evident that parts of the universe that have a finite past, come into being. It is not obvious for the universe as a whole. This, once more, is a fallacy of composition from Pro. Since Pro's argument here is based on an elementary logical fallacy; it can be discounted."Well... if it does not mean that the universe came into being... then does it mean that the universe did not come into being?" - ProThe above is a logical fallacy known as a false-dichotomy. A third option would be; it means that we can't determine whether the universe came into being or not, strictly off of the basis of a finite past. Remember that Pro has the burden of proof. Pro's ArgumentsPro said that I did not address his arguments, when I did address them sufficiently. He argued that particles served as a seed for the universe. I showed in my last round that this entails a logical contradiction. Particles are an inherent part of the universe. It is logically incoherent for a part of the universe, to be a seed for the whole of the universe to exist. Thus, the idea that particles served as an ingredient to the universe makes no sense at all. Since Pro did not respond to this in his last round, I find it ironic that he talks about me not addressing his arguments. Pro is the one not addressing arguments."Just because a cause is not known, does not mean that it is not there. Yet this is exactly what Con proposes." - ProIt is not that a cause is unknown, it is that there are no causes of certain quantum events at all. In order for virtual particles to be sufficiently caused for example, there would have to be "hidden variables" that we do not know about (which my opponent is alluding to). This requires a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics. However, local hidden variables have been ruled out by Bell's inequalities [1], and non-local hidden variables have been ruled out by Leggett's inequalities[2]. Thus, it is not that no cause is known; scientifically, there can be no sufficient cause of certain quantum events. Pro has not shown that something beginning to exist without a sufficient cause, can still be deemed a caused coming into being."Under this definition there is no way for Con to claim that the universe has not been caused." - ProEven with the definition provided, it is not clear why the universe has to have been caused. Pro just assumes this without any argument. "The B-Theory only proves that the universe did not have a cause under one condition. And that condition is that the universe does not have a finite past." - ProThe above is false. Even with a finite past, the universe still does not come into being under B-Theory. Ergo, there is no reason to posit a cause of the universe. I have even argued that under A-Theory a finite past of the universe does not equate to a coming into being.Pro then completely ignores defending P4 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I already proved, by appealing to Alexander Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins, that God is not needed to explain the universe.ConclusionAll of Pro's arguments were based on elementary logical fallacies. I showed that B-Theory is probably true by appealing to the Minkowsi space-time interpretation of Special Relativity, and why it is probably the correct interpretation. Since B-Theory is probably true, then the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably false. Pro did not even provide any arguments in favor of the universe beginning to exist. I also showed that a finite past doesn't entail a "coming into existence". Additionally, even if we accept that the universe began to exist, Vilenkin's model shows how this can occur naturalistically. This means, God is not neededNot a single premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been shown true by Pro. The resolution has been negated.Sources[1] http://phys.org...[2] http://www.quantumphil.org...PS. This is just a reminder that the debate is now over. In Pro's last round, Pro must only put: "No argument will be posted here as agreed".