The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

1. Metaphysical Support After having the boat analogy explained to me a third time, I still disagree with it, but now I understand and feel more than a little silly for not understanding. Thank you, Pro, for clarifying. As such, I have only one more objection for (1.1.) By material cause you mean the "stuff" that existed before to form the "stuff" being created. If that's true, then my ice sculpture analogy still makes sense because it logically couldn't exist even though it had a "material cause." I suppose all this does to (1) is force it to conclude that there must be both, and not either, types of causes as pro describes them. I believe this will be important later in the debate. Inductive Argument Pro's reply clears up all the problems I had with (1.2.) (1) is still logically uncertain, but it's good enough. 2. Actual Infinity In this, pro fails to prove that energy and sub-atomic particles have not always existed. Matter has not always existed the way we observe it because matter is made up of many particles, which are themselves believed by modern physicists to be made of many particles. In this respect, matter is described to be condensed energy. The logical proof that energy is eternal follows like this: 1. Energy may not be created nor destroyed 2. Creation is the beginning of existence (by definition) 3. If energy may not be created, then it never began to exist 4. If energy never began to exist, then it is eternal.* The fourth point remains slightly controversial among logicians and philosophers, mostly about the definition of eternal among other things. However, nearly every physicist agrees with some form of the above proof. The question I pose to pro is: Can you prove that energy, and not just matter, could or must have been created? Scientific Support I don't think I'm the one in misunderstanding here. Time didn't begin to exist until the big bang, at which point the singularity no longer existed. In addition, I find myself unable to respong to either of the quotes, as the first source seems to only be available in print and the link to the second is broken. However, I provide a counter-example to pro's interpretation of the model. Modern physics has no idea what came "before" the singularity, as it cannot be directly or indirectly observed, tested, or even hypothesized about with any certainty. Pro categorizes the beginning of the universe as metaphysical, which would effectivley put his argument above the laws of physics. However, he fails to explain why such an event is metaphysical. If the laws of physics apply to energy and matter in our current universe, why would they not apply to them before? 4. Pro, do you think me, as well as every person reading this, stupid? All of my parodic counter-examples as well as pro's (sadly unironic) assertion could not be proven false. They also left an infinite number of possible alternative explanations, each of which also could not be disproven. Moreover, not only do you describe a deductive argument that you didn't give, you claim that you don't need to give further argument because you already gave an inductive argument as to why "GAWDDIDIT!" is an acceptable answer. I don't even need to expend much effort dismantling pro's case, because all the critiscisms he puts to my hypotheticals I can put to his. He claims that abstract objects were the only viable alternative, but then goes on to demonstrate why they weren't viable. He does nothing to counter the countless non-falsifiable alternatives. The previous steps in the argument are incoherent with the cause, almost to the point of non sequitur. The argument may be solid in its first steps, but it is completely irreconcilable in its conclusion. As such, I am forced to conclude the Kalam cosmological argument hasn't a leg to stand on.