The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

For the first three statements, Pro's defendant argument (i. e. the Kalam argument) uses tortured language and pseudo-intellectual justifications. The largest hole, however, comes in with his last non sequitur. I'll dedicate the entirety of my final argument dismantling the earbleeding inconsistency of this futile defense. 4.0 Non-falsifiability and inconsistency of the claim Regarding pro's objections to my satirical counter-claims: While I had no proof they existed, con could not disprove their existence either. As I admitted in my preface to them, I did this on purpose to demonstrate how absurd pro's logic in the matter was. I raised several more parodic defenses based on that of Pro's argument (e. g. "The panda could be both invisible and pink because it existed beyond the laws of the universe. ") These claims where intentionally outrageous, counter-intuitive, and messy. To explain how something can possibly be non-falsifiable but not necessarily true, take the classic joke: "I'm extremely attractive when no one's looking. " You can't with certainty prove that wrong, and such the speaker leads his subject to conclude that they are in fact extremely attractive, even though they did not prove that they WERE attractive; Only that they couldn't be proven to not be. Such a logically deceptive trait is present in what I will call the "GAWDDIDIT! " hypothesis. You see, as pro interprets, it is seemingly indescribable in its existence and exact function. Because of this, you can't possibly have any way of confirming or denying its existence. To return to my highly cynical farces, they all in one way or another have a contrived clause in their theory that makes them impossible to logically expose them as the BS they are. The panda is beyond the universe; you can't understand how there's an infinite amount of them! The universe that collapsed to form ours has more than 4 dimensions; It's impossible to understand such a complex thing! Even if you examine the universe, it's still an illusion so it will appear to be real. This phenomenon of an assertion being so surreal and/or poorly worded that it can't possibly be proven wrong is looked down upon by every philosopher and logician worth their salt. Even so, Pro seems to think that, despite their logically unfair wording and general ambiguity, he disproved them. He didn't. For the first two, he argued from ignorance (Along the lines of "But you don't know that! ") and the last one was done in by my intentionally incoherent and surrealist description of the panda; It just doesn't make sense, so it can't be disproven. Pro, I find it difficult to believe you are really unaware of the infinite alternatives to your God. Every culture's creation myth, every fairy tale told by parents to lull their children to sleep, every tortured thought of a man going through and existential crisis serve as a counterpoint. You can prove your God exists with evidence of his existence, but I'm sorry to say that this structure (i. e. , the Kalam argument) of "'GAWDDIDIT,' therefore God exists," is simply absurd. 4.1 The Non Sequitur Jump from "The universe's creation was caused" to "GAWDDIDIT! " The Kalam argument does not do much to explain how the universe being caused to exist implies "GAW. .. " I feel I'm beating a dead horse with that caricature. The Kalam argument does not do much to explain how the universe being caused to exist implies that God exists. As I explained above, although the alternative explanations are quite outlandish, they serve to demonstrate that the universe having a cause does not make the nature of the cause itself self evident. Earlier in the debate I explained why the universe having a cause at all is philosophically dubious, but that is beside the current point. Given this information, I find it only right to conclude that the Kalam argument simply does not work. It makes logical leaps and starts off at the wrong point trying to prove that the Christian interpretation of God exists.