The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

IntroductionI welcome my opponent to the website. In this round, I will be addressing my opponent's claims by showing that they do not establish the desired conclusion. Conservation Of EnergyThe conservation of mass/ matter/ energy only entails that the net energy must always be the same. The universe most likely has a total energy sum of zero and many calculations demonstrate this [1]. This view is held because the negative energy of gravitational attraction and the negative energy stored in space, exactly offsets the positive energy in the universe to equal zero. This is hypothesis is no fiction either; as negative energy has even been experimentally verified between Casimir plates [2]. If there was no universe there was be a sum of zero energy; we we have the same sum with a universe. This means that no additional energy is required for a universe. Ergo, energy conservation would not really be violated. As physicist Alexander Vilenkin notes:"We know that there are conservation laws, and that energy is conserved. Usually this means that if you have 'nothing', you cannot have something because that takes energy....The energy of a closed universe is always zero." - Alexander Vilenkin[3]Vilenkin really is not talking about "nothing" as in non-being, but "nothing" as in a zero energy state. Energy can come from no energy, as long as there is enough negative energy to balance it out. Additionally, the total energy of a flat universe is zero as well as a closed universe. As Physicist Lawrence Krauss states:"In a flat universe, the total energy of the universe is precisely zero." - Lawrence Krauss[4]Now, I would argue that even if the total sum of the universe is not zero, the conservation of energy would not be violated assuming the universe came into being. This is because that which could be described by the law would have started to exist at the exact same time as the first bit of energy. The law would never be violated, as energy would still be conserved for as long as the universe existed. Stars, Planets, And The BibleThis has nothing to do with the Kalam. However, lets run though the claims:"We just happened to call Jupiter the king and father planet"How does this demonstrate that the universe began to exist, and was caused by God? "it just so happened to create three halo rings (representative of the holy trinity?) around the king star"Jupiter has four rings:"Jupiter is known to have 4 sets of rings: the halo ring, the main ring, the Amalthea gossamer ring, and the Thebe gossamer ring."[5]"We just so happened called a group of stars a constellation called Virgo the virgin"Once again, how does this demonstrate that the universe began to exist, and was caused by God? None of these arguments have anything to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. "we just so happened to name Leo the Lion as such, instead of it being called literally anything else. "So? This has nothing to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Also, my opponent is twisting the implications of probability fallaciously. What are the odds that I chose to McDonalds over any other possible restaurant? We can say that everything is improbable based in this flawed reasoning. "The constellation could have been called a dog, something that does not relate to Judaism, but it did."Yes, but this is due to tradition. Stars are always named in a manner relating to mythology. This says nothing about the ontological existence of a cause of the coming into being of the universe that is God. "I find it impossible that God did not play a role in some part of that process."I find that it is more likely that not that God did not play a role in any process at all. However, bare assertions without support get us nowhere. "Either he created the stars in such a way that they would line up in a specific way for the birth of Jesus, or he influenced us in the naming of our planets and constellations."My opponent has not shown that this is a true dichotomy, and it is in no way self-evident. As I said, human beings have always named bodies in space with regards to mythology. This is tradition. This says nothing on the actual existence of God. ConclusionI sufficiently refuted my opponents argument involving the conservation of energy. Also, his second argument had nothing to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Not only that, but I showed that none of the things he mentioned really imply God at all. Pro has not met his burden of proof. Sources [1] http://arxiv.org...[2] http://www.universetoday.com...[3] http://www.closertotruth.com...[4] Video Source[5] http://www.universetoday.com...http://www.youtube.com...