The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is False

Thank you for such an interesting rebuttal!1. Con believed that I implied that the universe could begin to exist without a cause and that I need to back up my claim.NO! I didn't claim anything about the origin of the universe. I claimed that the method in which you used to arrived at the conclusion that the universe must have a cause, is unsound. I neither asserted that the universe doesn't need a cause nor otherwise. It may or may not, I am open to the idea. And yes I did back up my claims. What about the self-replication that I mentioned? I think Con forgot to give a response to the self-replication that I talked about. I applied composition fallacy to my cells as an example to desmonstrate that the fallacy of composition leads to a false conclusion. And, when you apply the fallacy to something you already know the validity of, you can test whether the composition fallacy leads to a right conclusion. Because everything within the universe has the property of having a cause, therefore the entire universe needs a cause? Apparently, infering whole from parts does not work very well for all cases.2. But emptiness cannot create anything. What boggled me is your usage of the word "emptiness". It sounds as if there were space to be empty! There was NO space before the Big Bang.3. Con then went on to say that "Something cannot begin to exist because of "nothing".Let's do a little thought experiment.Imagine two intelligent bacterias who were inside a human body. Now, because all they can 'see' is cells replicating (Even the bacterias themselves replicate). They might think that the whole collection of cells around them also replicate, which we know to be false because humans don't do that! However, they might reason that "Well, anything not replicate will dissapear. But the 'body' we're living in do not dissapear. Therefore the entire 'body' replicate." What's wrong with that argument? The answer is because their minds are limited to their environment in which they live in, it is simply incomprehesible for them to think of a way for something to flourish without self-replicating.Similarly, the human minds are also limited to the universe we are living in, so it is incomprehensible for you and me to even imagine something come out of nothing. I admit that I cannot name an object which comes in and out of existence that you can me can observe (except for my keys, because they sometimes do pop in and out of existence unexplainably), because if coming into and out of existence happens regularly like that, it would be such a normal phenomenon and so a universe from nothing wouldn't be considered as an impossibility like it is right now. Here comes my arguments:Is "nothing" really the opposite of "something", or is it just a human-constructed concept.I am convinced the latter is true. Here are the reasons:- If you imagine nothingness to be an infinite black void, then it is not really nothing. Because you've got space! Unless you can imagine nothingness without imagining space, which I don't think you can. - Secondly, Can you really have a 'nothingness' in reality? Even in vaccum, you have a pair virtual particles that come into existence, and come out of existence by annihilating themselves. - Thirdly, Is 'nothing' a natural state of the universe? What if the natural state of the universe is particles come in and out of existence all the time. The natural state may not be the nothingness that you insisted, which means 'not anything', not even a particle. If so, then why do you assume that nothing is the 'default' state of the universe? It is a possibility that the concept of 'nothingness' does not exist in reality at all, that you always get particles annihilate each other even in the most nothingness you can get. My point is that a 'cause' is not the only alternative you have. 4. Con accused me of committing the fallacy of composition."Everything that's 'caused' is just the rearrangement of atoms, ergo, the Universe is a rearrangement"Response: That's some misunderstanding going on.I did not claim that the universe is a rearrangement. Let me go over my argument one more time.P1:Everything within the universe begins to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms, has a cause. That premise has 2 conditions: the object has to be within the universe, plus it has to begins to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms. If the two conditions are satisfied then the conclusion is sound. A chair, a baby, a book, a key, those are objects in the universe, begin to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms, therefore it follows logically they have a cause. Now the universe is not within the universe, and it did not begins to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms but a result of the creation of space-time, energy, and atoms (or matter). Therefore the conclusion that the universe had a cause does not follow. Nowhere in my argument I said that the universe is a rearrangment. What I meant was "If you want the conclusion to follow the premises, then the universe must begin to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms (which means atoms existed before the Big Bang), in order to satisfy the condition stated in the first premise. But since the unvierse is not the rearrangment, it does not satisfy the condition, and therefore the conclusion is unsound.5. But "The deity could've made the atoms, which then were arranged to create planets and stars and whatnot."Definition: "domain of an argument" : the set of things that the argument can be applied toSo by definition, the domain of the first premise is everything within the universe begins to exist as a result of the rearrangment of the already existing atoms. Atoms is not rearrangment of the already existing atoms, therefore atoms lies outside the domain of the premise and cannot be applied to. 6. "Well, it's either the Universe did begin to exist, or it didn't begin, and has always existed. Evidence suggests the former."We're debating the validity of the Kalam argument, not whether the universe had a beginning or otherwise. We can't know whether it had a cause or not. That's why I am trying to prove to you that arguments like those don't lead to the right conclusion. 7. "Logic isn't an object. It's a process of thinking. We didn't create logic, it came with us."By 'Logic' I meant the laws of logicNow, I have never said that logic was an object. And what if it's not an object? That does not concern my argument.?Do you believe that Logic is the absolute truth in the universe?My argument was that "The domain of logic is the environment where you live in."Con went on to confirm my argument by stating that "We haven't experienced the results of the 2016 Election. But if we consider facts, Hillary Clinton will probably win." The election is within the environment in which you live, so applying logic to that is absolutely fine. What I am saying is one cannot apply the laws of logic to something foreign like the entire universe. For example, acient Egyptians may argue: "All things fall down to the ground". Now the domain of that statement is everything on Earth (Stars do not fall to the ground). When you want to expand the domain of the argument, you need a better theory with a greater domain (Newton's Laws of Gravity is one such example). Now since the domain of the statement "Everything exists need a cause" is limited to the observable world on Earth and not something outside of it or something unobservable (like at the Quantum level). 8. "Energy doesn't last forever. Therefore, there must be a finite amount of energy." In order to use the 2nd law of Thermodynamic, you assumed that the universe is a closed system. How do you know that? Anyways, I am not going to defend that the universe is eternal.