Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

Someone wrote: "1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. On what grounds is this assumption made?" I made no such assumption. "Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist" Yes, so we agree that things can and do begin to exist. "The matter itself didn't "begin to exist"" Yes it did. "The argument refers to first there being nothing, and then something beginning to exist." No it doesn't, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. "The only thing that can happen is for the energy to change from one state to another, but the total amount is always preserved." No it isn't. "Comparing concepts like "the chair began to exist when the carpenter created it" and "the universe began to exist", and considering them equivalent, would be a fallacy of equivocation." No it wouldn't. "It's certainly not the same thing." I never claimed they were "the same thing," so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "(In the first case nothing actually came into existence." Ye, something did. " A more accurate assessment would be that matter was transformed from one shape to another.)" No it wouldn't. "Did the energy in this universe "begin to exist" at some point, or has it always existed (the definition of "always" not being trivial, as we will see later)? This is currently an unknown." No, it isn't an unknown. " There is no justification to say either way." Yes there is. " Thus, especially in this context, there is no justification to say that it did begin to exist" Yes there is. ". Hence the premise is unfounded." No it isn't. "2) Even if we make the assumption that energy "began to exist", the second assumption made by the premise is also unfounded:" No it isn't. " That it must have had a cause for it beginning to exist." It did require a cause, actually. "Again, there is no justification for this claim according to modern knowledge of physics." I didn't claim that there was, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part. " For example, according to current knowledge, in quantum mechanics so-called virtual particles begin to exist (in a sense) without any cause for their existence." No they don't. " Their appearance is spontaneous and stochastic." No it isn't. "There is no justification to make a claim one way or the other." Yes there is. " It is certainly not completely out of question that it was a phenomenon without a deterministic cause."" I never posited a "deterministic cause," so that is yet another straw man on your part. "2. The universe has a beginning of its existence." I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man on your part. "We don't know if the universe began to exist or if it has "always" existed in some form." Yes we do. "It's possible that this universe did begin to exist, but that the phenomenon was spontaneous and uncaused." No it isn't. "3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence." You are arguing against someone else's argument, not against mine. I never made the above statement, so this is yet another strawman on your part: Please argue against my actual statements instead of someone else's, from now on. "The conclusion is invalid because the two premises are invalid. (It might be true, but there's no justification for making the claim." The conclusion to which you refer was written by someone other than me, so your above statement is yet another straw man on your part. "My argument contains no Straw Man flaws." Actually, you failed to address even a single word of my actual argument, choosing instead to argue against an argument written by someone other than myself. Therefore your entire response was nothing but a long string of straw man logical fallacies. Therefore you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)