The Kalām Cosmolgical Argument attempts to prove very little.

Virtually all of my opponents claims were addressed in my opening arguments, to which he did not respond. Con says, “It is possible to determine several characteristics of the first cause through transcendental necessity ...” What does transcendental necessity mean? It seems to mean his claims. Timeless. Con argues that time if finite because if it extended infinitely far back it would be “logically absurd.” That's a classic argument from incredulity, claiming that something must be so because the person cannot imagine it otherwise. For example try, “There cannot be an upper limit to the speed of an object, because no matter how fast it is going we cannot imagine that it cannot go faster.” That's convincing, except that Einstein's claim that it is false has been verified. What we can imagine is a limitation of ours, not a limitation of the universe we observe. Other religions, e.g., Buddhism, have no problem with the past being infinite. However, the objection is overcome even if time is finite. Con postulates a space outside of time where God exists. Modern physics postulates a multiverse that exists outside of time. As Kaku analogized, our universe together with it's time is a bubble in the multiverse. There is no requirement that time exists everywhere in the multiverse. One scientific theory is that time will ultimately end in our. Other universes will continue with their own dimensions of time. The modern theory may not prove correct, but the conceptual alternative exists. So if the KCA is true, the debate over whether the first cause is natural or supernatural will continue. Let's suppose that the modern cosmology is wrong because there is no space outside of time. If so, then God cannot exist outside of time either. We then are back looking at an unsolvable problem, which the KCA did not advance. Any argument that claims God is exempt from some limitation can be equally applied to the multiverse. Spaceless. Con argues, “Just as our time cannot beget our time, our space cannot beget our space.” That is consistent with an 11-dimensional multiverse that spawns four-dimensional universes. Moreover, the analogy is invalid. Our present universe is expanding and literally creating more space. Nothing prevents it. Changeless. Con claims, “Change itself is an event, and events are temporal.” When the universe is created there is no time, so creation is one exception to all events being temporal. Time only exists after it happened, so we can look back and find the time when it happened. But before that, there was no time, so it didn't happen in time. This is “inconceivable” in the sense that no one can relate to “time beginning” in terms of ordinary experience. What scientists do is write equations and attempt to show that the equations are consistent with what we experience. The question of “can we imagine it?” is not part of the calculation. If a theory proves true, it does not require that we be able to imagine it. Immaterial. Con says, “Something is never truly believed to have come from nothing.” That's purely a consequence of limits in Con's imagination. It is not proved by physical theory. Since we don't see things appearing from nothing in ordinary experience, the circumstances under which it happens are certainly not everyday circumstances. For example, there is good evidence supporting the theory that vacuum energy is created on the edge of the universe as it expands. Vacuum energy exerts a gravitational force that, apparently, is accounts for the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. The new energy at the edges is pulling the universe apart. [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Unimaginably Powerful. Con says, “While the laws that govern it are simple, the sheer amount of energy contained within it is beyond our ability to fully comprehend.” Con has told us three times that he cannot imagine anything but a God cause. However, the ability to imagine large amounts of something is not an argument for or against anything. However, Con's next argument, “Therefore, whatever caused our universe is incredibly powerful.” does not follow. Consider, “The energy unleashed by an atomic bomb is enormous. Therefore the humans who created the bomb must be of even greater physical power.” Not at all. Nor does it require a mhuman to move the snow in an avalanche. The argument also fails in presuming a creator. Consider, “The force of gravity that holds a galaxy together is unimaginably great. Therefore, there must be a powerful gravity god that facilitates it.” There isn't. Physical forces do not need gods to operate them. Large forces are typically associated with unintelligent nature. The sun converts 4 million tonnes of matter into energy each second without any intelligent guidance. Personal. Con says, “There are only two kinds of things that are both timeless and immaterial: minds and abstract objects ...” This is flatly false. The multiverse, as conceived, is both timeless and immaterial. It contains material universes, but the multiverse itself is not bound by material. Con's assertion that minds are timeless and immaterial is not proved. In our everyday experience, minds are only observed to exist within material bodies. In our experience, a mind without an operable physical body has no power to create anything other than thoughts. We do not understand the mechanism of subjective consciousness beyond the level of the biology of brain activity. At that level, the “mind” is a time series of electrical events. Therefore a mind that exists outside of time is not conceivable to us. Being inconceivable is not decisive, but we can at least write the equations for the multiverse to show that it works in theory. There is nothing that remotely suggests a mind that works independent of time. The KCA does not undermine naturalistic presuppositions Con says, “The fundamental presupposition of naturalism is that the cosmos is all there is, ever was, and ever will be.” Perhaps there is some conception of naturalism that makes that assumption, but I've never heard of it. The Buddhist thinking I quoted was that it is irrelevant to know anything about God or the cosmos to resolve moral issues. The Deist sentiment of the Declaration of Independence is “We hold these truths to be self-evident ...” Self-evident means apparent from what is observed. In particular the nature of mankind as observed. Deists believed that God created the universe and will return in judgment, but that moral laws could only be found through naturalism. Naturalism does not discount the possibility of miracles, nor the existence of God. Miracles are events that are inexplicable based upon our current knowledge. As discussed, religion has traditionally explained volcanic eruptions and everything else otherwise unexplained. The question for religion is not whether God exists, it is what God wants if He exists. Deists argue that God exists and morality is made evident by human nature. Buddhists say that it doesn't matter whether God exists, because morality is evident in human nature. Scientific naturalists say that God is unnecessary, but not impossible, but that in any case morality is self-evident. KCA does very little to support Christ's resurrection What must be explained is the story of Christ's resurrection as told in the Bible. Consider the probabilities of: a. the events didn't happen, but were added to the Bible to enhance Christianities appeal b. the events apparently occurred, but were staged as a hoax to appear miraculous c. the events apparently occurred, but were staged by space aliens to set humankind on a path d. the events actually occurred, but were the work of beings from another dimension e. the Christian God did it The Christian God is the least plausible of the explanations, with or without the KCA. Since even then the KCA is seven steps of proof away from the Christian God, it proves very little.