The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is a Sound Argument for God's Existance

Thank you, Ron. I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of Its ExistanceFirst of all, the source "10 commandments" that you produced is NOT a reliable source. It would have been a lot better to cite a peer reviewed scientific article. My opponent asks, "How did the material to create the big bang come into existance? And, what made it explode at that point, after being there for eternity?" First of all, the quantum world does not act like the regular natural world. I'll requote the quote from my previous round:In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)So, in other words, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere. It is unpredictable. Likewise, Stephen Hawkings has proposed a four dimensional universe. In this model, the universe may go through periods of increasing entropy during an expansionary phase and a period of reducing entropy during the contractionary phase. (Tobin, 2009). If Stephen is correct, this means that the universe could be an infinite number of cycles -- which the laws of physics allow.You have given two quotations which, are unfortunately, from unreliable sources; once again, I'd prefer if you post peer reviewed scientific articles. Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton note: The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. (Feuerbacher, Bjorn; Scanton, Ryan 2006) Let's look at his philosophical arguments.1. An actual infinite cannot exist;2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite;3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.The problem begins with premise 1: An actual infinity can exist. My opponent has not defended premise 1 and until he does, it commits the fallacy of proof by assertion. However, if an infinite cannot exist, why can God exist? III. Why the KCA Is Wrong - The "B" Theory"It looks as if the A Theorist must choose between two possible responses to the argument from relativity: (1) deny the theory of relativity, or (2) deny that the theory of relativity actually entails that there can be no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Option (1) has had its proponents (including Arthur Prior), but in general has not proven to be widely popular. This may be on account of the enormous respect philosophers typically have for leading theories in the empirical sciences. Option (2) seems like a promising approach for A Theorists, but A Theorists who opt for this line are faced with the task of giving some account of just what the theory of relativity does entail with respect to absolute simultaneity. (Perhaps it can be plausibly argued that while relativity entails that it is physically impossible to observe whether two events are absolutely simultaneous, the theory nevertheless has no bearing on whether there is such a phenomenon as absolute simultaneity.)" (Markosian 2010)""First, the B Theory of time greatly misconstrues some biblical ideas, one example being the doctrine of creation ex nihilo..."First of all, what does this even mean? Who cares if it misconstrues biblical ideas and ex nihilo? I am quite confused at the quotaton that you have provided. Plese elaborate on the rebuttal. IV. Why the KCA Is Wrong - Iterating to Infinity Extend my argument. BibliographyDavies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Quoted in my previous round. Feuerbacher, Björn, and Ryan Scranton. "Evidence for the Big Bang." Evidence for the Big Bang. N.p., 25 Jan. 2006. Web. 27 June 2012. <http://www.talkorigins.org... >.Markosian, Ned, "Time", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu... >.