The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

Ex Nihilo, aliquid fitMy opponent has named a couple of objections. The first of which is that from nothing, nothing comes, because nothing has no potentiality. Potentiality, though, necessarily predicates Aristotelean causality: potentiality and actuality are the two sides of Aristotelean causality. To put it quickly, from potentiality change occurs to create actuality. However, as Aristotle rightly noted, this creates a logical inconsistency with the creation of the world[1], and requires things that exist from nothing, or create from nothing. However, my opponent clearly disputes this when saying "something would have to come from nothing in order for the first premise to be false" - though more interestingly later claims falsity of Aristotelean logic, which is the justification for the argument.Firstly, this means my opponent must now affirm that the universe was not created from nothing. This does not become solved simply by positing God, though. It must also posit eternal matter existing to be shaped and create the universe. Of course, once eternal matter is posited, the entire argument fails to be convincing, as the eternal matter is all that is needed to exist. The additional positing of God falls due to Ockham's razor: an unnecessary cause and complexity.Secondly, my opponent must still posit some rational causal chain in order to be substantial in his argumentation. Scientists both agree that the laws of nature break down at the beginning of the universe[8], making observed phenomenon valueless in prediction[3], and it still suffers: "Aristotle makes it very clear that all his predecessors merely touched upon these causes...the use of causality was not supported by an adequate theory of causality. According to Aristotle, this explains why their investigation, even when it resulted in important insights, was not entirely successful."[4] Without this, the first premise still remains unsupported. After all, the scientific laws did not exist at the start of the universe, so we need a rational law. And no amount of empirical data creates rationalism. My opponent is trying to get out of this hole by not providing rationalist justification, but it is clear that empirical justification is not up to scratch, at a time when there is no empirical laws.In short, put bluntly, my opponent is right in saying that I cannot posit a universe of pure potentiality. That is why the universe holds actuality. The eternal matter of the universe is necessary for not just my argument, but for my opponent's, to remain valid.Never Verified and Never falsified makes Karl Popper an unhappy man.As a reader, try to name an event without a material cause. This is an interesting proposition, and very relevant as the first premise rests on this event never occurring. Firstly, we have atomic decay, which is known to create new atoms from old ones, as well as many quantum effects[5] which is well agreed on among scientists to having none of the four causes. This alone would give falsification to the unbreakability of the principle of causality. But further, let us look at the examples provided. A cup is made from pre-existing materials. A human is made of pre-existing materials. Yet the God Hypothesis does not state not only that we were made from non-pre-existing materials, but that we still need an efficient cause for such creation. This means that it no longer follows in the set of things created as per the rules of causality. What my opponent tries to do is equivocate the set of "things that begin to exist" with "things that begin to exist in accordance to the principle of causality". As these sets are hypothetical, we know already these sets are different because we can think of things that exist in one set but not the other. In short, to repeat what has already been said, my opponent needs to actually state, as well as justify, the principles of causality he is discussing. The Final CauseIronically, my opponent has provided a criticism of his own case. Because the principle of causality is flawed - the principle based off of Aristotlean causality - we simply cannot use it to prove the first premise of the argument! However, I wish to go over two things. Firstly, 'cause' in greek means aiton. We use 'cause' as it is the best translation, however, what we mean by the final cause is "what it is for". For writing on is what a table is for. The final cause of an earthquake is death and destruction ensuing (or the rubbing of the plates being for the beginning of an earthquake). Secondly, the quote by stanford is simply false. One must realise that the source is written by philosophy undergraduates mostly - a group which are 99% of the time right, but in the treacherous realm of deciphering Aristotle's original writing, has had it's 1% of being wrong. The quotation defending the source is this: "Now, the causes being four, it is the business of the physicist to know them all, and as long as he refers his problems back to them, he will assign the [cause] in the way proper."[6] For us to appeal to causality, we must know them all. InfinityI actually agree with my opponent: a complete infinite set with a specific unit in mind is impossible. Asking "What is ten percent of infinity" is like asking "What is ten percent of multiplication?": it is nonsensical. This of course doesn't mean multiplication is impossible, anymore than this makes infinity impossible. And about how we'd get to now is quite simple. Imagine the set of all positive integers. The set is firstly infinite, and the set secondly has a beginning. Say we are at t=5. The beginning is t=1. Thus, we add 4 to get to where we are now. All time has elapsed.Designing the designerFirstly, the term "atemporally eternal" is inconsistent. If one is eternal, you are everlasting, and exists for all time, which necessarily means existent in time. One cannot be atemporally eternal anymore than one can be physically imaginary or a shape with no size. More importantly, though, the dilemma is not solved. I simply as "Why is there an eternal atemporal [inconsistent] designer?" So all problems exist.Dropped pointsWe still have a severe problem of how God can create the universe. If he does so, he creates time. Further, creation is a change of state. This creates two problems. Firstly, God is changeless scripturally[7], but more importantly rationally. As god exists outside of time, yet he changes from not-creating to creating to not-creating of everything, for example, necessitates time to already exist. Thus, time must already exist. But, as time exists inside the universe, the universe must necessarily also exist already, which means there is no creation event by a god to cause it.Further, I explicitly stated that the principle of causality only affects that which is created ex materia - or things with material causes, then I stated that the universe has no material cause. However, my opponent has only provided evidence that has material causes. This needs to be addressed.Also...I also wish to remind the audience that the Big Bang was not a creation of a thing, but an expansion event. In other words, the beginning of the universe is its expansion from pre-existing materials. Thus, the universe did not come from nothing, but pre-existing materials of the singularity. Did these materials come from nothing, or are eternal? Scientists opt for the latter[8]. In the same essay, Smoot et al. explains how the matter can interally cause a superexpansion due to how the unfathomably large amount of energy acts, and thus can act without external influence.1 - Physics, Aristotle2 - Metaphysics Book XII, Aristotle3 - http://www.hawking.org.uk...;4 - http://plato.stanford.edu...5 - http://tinyurl.com...6 - http://tinyurl.com...;(minor structure changes in accordance to commentary); 198a 21-23; lecture 11.7 - Genesis accounts, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, etc.8 - Smoot, George, Davidson. Wrinkles in Time. p. 36