The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

Here are my counter-arguments to con's round 4. Several of his points have been dealt with in my summary, in round 4, so I won't rehash them. --"Previously I argued that half of something is always something, Pro did not argue against this claim. Pro merely pointed out to some "theories". This isn't a refutation of my claim that half of something is always something, thus refuting Pros claim that the shrinking universe = the universe did not exist at some point."-- I wasn't using the big crunch theory, as part of my argument. I intended it as an example, to support the statement that I made, about the scientific community accepting, that the universe had a beginning, and will have an end, and I gave the basics of one of those theories. I do not argue that the big crunch theory will happen, nor do I intend it as part of my argument for the KCA. My understanding of the big crunch theory, as I stated last round, is that it involves the universe shrinking to a certain point, then through whatever mechanism, it basically collapses, no longer existing. It does not involve, to my knowledge, infinite shrinking. Regardless, I will attempt to deal with my opponent's theory, of an infinitely shrinking universe. Con's statement, "Half of something is always something", sounds legitimate and logical. However, when we try to apply that theory to something like an infinitely shrinking universe, it raises questions. For instance, if the universe continues to shrink and compress, wouldn't it, at some point, no longer have the same properties that our universe has?? Wouldn't it become unrecognizable, and uninhabitable?? Wouldn't it, at some point in the infinite shrinkage, stop playing by the same rules that govern the universe that we know?? I would think that all of those would happen, and then some, but even if the answer to one of those questions is yes, then our universe has ceased to exist. Granted, the "Half of something is always something" statement would still be true, as there is something left, but that something that's left, is not our universe. --"Why does known scientific principles have to be abandon too consider such a proposition?"-- You have to ignore the impossibility of an actually infinite number of past events, for one. --"Pro once again denies the objective reality of time. If time is not objectively real, then temporal events are not objectively real, and the claim that the universe began to exist is a temporal event"-- …and if temporal events do not exist, then the universe does not exist, if the universe does not exist then we are not having this debate. Sounds absurd, doesn't it?? It makes for a good theoretical, or philosophical discussion, but when trying to apply it in the physical world, we run into problems. My illustration about the boss was an attempt to highlight such an absurdity. I have not denied the existence of time. I have maintained, from the beginning of this debate, that time exists as a system of measure, and the actions that time measures have existed since the beginning of the universe. I'm not sure how that statement translates into a denial, of the reality of time. --"Pro dismisses this claim. Previously I listed 4 things that the KCA argues can happen "outside" of the universe but can't happen "inside" the universe. Those 4 things are.... 1) Something existing without a cause (God) 2) Creating energy where there is no pre existent energy (Creation ex nihilo) 3) A mind without a brain (God) 4) Not subject to physical laws (God) Pro does not dis agree with this distinction, Pro just dismisses. Trouble is just dismissing it doesn't make it go away, as such this contention remains."-- First off, the KCA makes no reference to, or argument for, points 2 and 3. Those are assertions, by my opponent, that are not supported by the wording of the KCA. Secondly, I did deal with this issue in paragraph 5 of round 3. Con states, "Now, I won't challenge that you can't get something from nothing within the universe, but why should we accept that as a rule that applies outside of the universe?" I conceded that point, agreeing that, unless we can show why it must apply, we can't just assume that it must apply. I went on to say that if that logic is applied to that particular rule, that it must also apply to other rules, too. Con did not disagree, nor did he offer anything to show that the other rules must also apply outside the universe. If he can't show that those rules must apply, outside the universe, then by HIS OWN LOGIC, God's existence, or the fact that He is not subject to physical laws, can not be illogical. Also, con did not disagree, so far, with my observations made at the end of that paragraph. --"Pro says "First of all, the "something from nothing" comment was mine. The KCA does not argue HOW the universe was created, or even that there was absolutely nothing." Now Pro seems to be implying that it is possible to get something from nothing. This refute premise 1 of KCA that says "1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence."-- I fail to see how con deduces that from my statement. The KCA does not say that something was, or wasn't, created from nothing. It does not imply that there was, or wasn't, a singularity. It does not imply that there was, or wasn't, energy or matter, in some form. It simply doesn't speak to the issue, of how, or from what, the universe was created. I made the something for nothing comment, and later realized it was a bad one, and that it's not really what the KCA says. I tried to make that correction in round 3. Where is a refutation? Round 5 --"I remind Pro this debate is on the Kalam Cosmological argument, the KCA makes no arguments based on "design"."- The KCA is a cosmological argument for the existence of God. In con's opening, he wrote, "explanation is given in terms of a personal agent", so this seems irrelevant, no matter what word is used (God, designer, first cause, prime mover), we know the goal of the argument. --"Just because something has not be proven false is not the same as it being proven true"-- If you look at the paragraph, in context, it says, "I can't PROVE to you…on the other hand, no one has DISPROVED." I go on to argue for a "higher likelihood", based on my arguments, not based on anything not being disproved. I did not argue that since it isn't disproved, it must be true, therefore, no fallacy exists. --"The KCA makes claims that can't possibly happen inside of our universe, yet can happen outside of the universe. A double standard is used to allow God to exist and do things which without the double standard would be rejected."-- As we established, back in round 3 with con's own logic, we can't ASSUME that a standard that exists inside the universe MUST also apply outside it, without proof. Con has offered no reasoning why those standards must apply. He has offered nothing to support his claim that the "double standard", can't be allowed. He also hasn't answered, as to his contradiction that I pointed out in round 3. "Outside the universe", is part of his argument but he also argues for an infinite, eternal universe. Those two arguments are contradictory. --"Pro doesn't regard that "getting something from nothing" is logically impossible."-- As I showed earlier, this is a misunderstanding, or a misrepresentation of my argument. --"Pro for most of this debate, argued that time is a system of measure invented by us, and is not objectively real, thus something can't begin to exist, in the objectively real sense."-- Again, my comments are on record, "is not objectively real", isn't implied in any of them. Aside from the time/past comparison, refuted in round 2, con provides no real reason to reject the KCA. Bias aside, based on the arguments in the debate, I ask a vote for pro. I thank con for hosting this debate.