The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

Passage and KnowledgeMy opponent starts out by arguing that presentism must be true because we cannot see the past and future and it explains the passage of time.Let me grant that there exists one single frame of reference, just as presentism states, does that mean that you know what is happening everywhere in the universe? After all, everything exists simultaneously. Obviously that would be ridiculous. This is analogous to perceiving the future under eternalism: it's an epistemic problem, not an ontological one.The passage of time is an illusion.Special RelativityCon presents three objections, (1) SR is false, (2) Anti-atheist thinks it's false and (3) SR works without simultaneity.(1) His arguments from the debate he referred to are ridiculous. Accordingly, he lost it. To sway people that the STR, one of our best empirical theories, is wrong requires more work than linking some other debate. An argument would be a nice start.(2) This is an attempted appeal to authority. Anti-atheist lost the debate 28-0. (3) Special relativity, as I have presented it, is the orthodoxy among scientists. Linking some article is insufficient to overthrow scientific consensus. Again, an argument is the minimum requirement.Cross-Time RelationsPro misses the point of this objection. It's all fine and dandy to refer to memories, but one's current memories are not truthmakers for events she did not experience. "1939 a world war started" is obviously true, but I don't have memories of it and for a presentist the year 1939 does not exist. Therefore there is no truthmaker for the above claim.Presentist can't, as my opponent puts it, refer "to what use to be the present", since nothing else exists! You can't refer to something that does not exist. I explained why this is the reason presentists use tensed operators like 'WAS' and 'WILL'.Cross Time Spatial RelationsThe fact that one guy did drugs while reading Russell's A History of Western Philosophy does not discredit his work in the slightest.Pro correctly points out that I did not give any reason to accept Russell's theory. That is because I took it as a given.Why is that? It's because I and presumably my opponent, too, learned about it in school. It's what all textbooks and most scientists use."An object’s velocity can be identified with the first time derivative of its trajectory" (1)That is Russell's theory right there.BGV TheoremNo, classical mechanics does not invalidate it. I have never said it is invalid in general, all I have said is that it does not support the KCA.I'll leave the talking to Vilenkin himself:"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist."(2)Back to Pro.Sources(1) http://www.ulrichmeyer.org...(2) Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, p.176