The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

Pro says "I would first like to summarize what my opponent just said: That the universe and time could not begin to exist because there was a time when neither existed" This is a misunderstanding of my argument. I was showing the contradiction of claiming that some where in the past time did not exist. Because of the contradiction this proves that its impossible for time to begin to exist. I will go into more detail on this later on in my argument. What is time ? Pro says "So, what would happen if the Earth ceased to turn? What would happen if the Earth ceased to orbit around the sun? What would happen to time? Because the very basis of time would cease to exist, and we wouldn't be able to effectively measure time anymore, then I suppose you could say that time would cease to exist. " Pro confuses our various measurements of time such as the solar calendar, with the more fundamental reality of time. It is this fundamental reality of time that is being referred to in the kalam argument and my counter argument. As it has been said, time is what stops all events happening together. For instance Pro was born AFTER his parents were born. The birth of his parents and his birth did not happen together. Its this difference between events, a difference not based on the physical or spatial that is being referred too when we talk about time. Time is "A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. " [1] On a side note, even if the world stopped turning, the sun stopped rising, we would still have a measurement of time. "An atomic clock is a clock that uses an electronic transition frequency in the microwave optical, or ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum of atoms as a frequency standard for its timekeeping element. Atomic clocks are the most accurate time and frequency standards known, and are used as primary standards for international time distribution services, to control the frequency of television broadcasts, and in global navigation satellite systems such as GPS. " [2] Countering the Kalam argument Premise 1) For something to begin to exist, there must be a point in the past where it did not exist. If something exists, and has always existed, that is too say there is no time in the past where it did not exist, that makes it eternal and thus did not begin to exist. For example Pro began to exist, because there was a point in the past where Pro did not exist. Lets look at two different states. .. .. State 1 = Where Pro does not exist State 2 = Where Pro does exist S2 always comes after S1. Premise 2) There has never being a point in time where time did not exist. As said before, to say that time did not exist "before" it existed is a contradiction. Because there is no "before" where time does not exist. Before/present/after all happen where time exists. Premise 3) Time is part of the universe The argument is as follows. .. .. .. Premise 1) For something to begin to exist, there must be a point in the past where it did not exist. Premise 2) There has never being a point in time where time did not exist. Premise 3) Time is part of the universe. Conclusion 1) Therefore the claim that the universe began to exist is false. I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...