The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

I admit that I had not realized I needed to prove all premises true. I'm a little out of my element in formal debate, and some terms still elude me. That included the significance of the term "sound" in this context. I would argue that the KCA argument is inherently inductive rather than deductive, but that isn't the resolution I accepted so never mind that. Explaining "Begins to Exist"Since this seems to be so important to Con, I will take the time to briefly explain what this means. Begins to exist only has meaning in relation to time. Within the context of time, it means that at a moment in time something did not exist, and later it came into existence. A house does not exist in a meadow at one point in time. .. and few years later a house has been built and has therefore come to exist in that meadow. Simple. Now outside of the context of time, "begins to exist" has no meaning. Neither I nor the KCA argument however have argued that the universe lies outside the boundaries of time. And if Con would like to make such an argument. .. that is fine, but he can take on the burden of proof for it himself. Below in Rebuttal 1, I will show why B-Theory does not make sense, and in Rebuttal 2 I will show why it is logical that the universe began to exist. Rebuttal 1The B-Theory of time, as explained by Con, seems to be an argument which is not sound. If the premises behind the B-Theory are not true, then the whole argument founded upon the B-Theory has no merit. The B-Theory as explained by Con proposes that the universe is a four-dimensional space-time block that simply exists tenselessly. It serves no purpose, goes through no changes of any kind, and ironically "emerges" in a completed state. While it does have a finite past, it wasn't caused and doesn't go through any process of development or becoming. .. because at its starting point it is already complete. Note by the way that emerge means "To become manifest" or "To rise from"[1]. Now, I ask a simple question. .. if the universe itself has no cause, and did not begin to exist, can anything within the universe have a cause or begin to exist? No. You see, if the universe is a four-dimensional space-time block, that was not caused and did not begin to exist. .. then it logically follows that no aspect or part of that block could have been caused or begun to exist either. Why? Because if the universe existed in a complete state from its starting point, then no part of it went through a process of becoming and no part of it was caused. I will remind the readers that Con claimed that if B-Theory is true "then there is no temporal becoming. " This essentially means that Causality does not exist in B-Theory time. Even if the B-Theory is trueIt would mean that cause as it applies within the universe could be applied to the universe itself as well if it has a finite past. A finite past would suggest that the universe is inside something in the same way that we are inside the universe. It may be a larger four-dimensional block of space-time, or something with even more dimensions beyond space-time. Whatever it is, the universe would have the same relation to it, that we have to the universe; in which case the universe would have been "caused" within the greater block. If we therefore claim that anything at all is caused within the universe. .. there is no logical reason to claim that the universe itself was not caused. Rebuttal 2I appreciate the pictures Con has provided to "prove" how the universe didn't come into being, I'm not however sure how it constitues evidence of anything. Just because you draw something a certain way doesn't prove your argument. I also haven't failed to note Con's wonderful argument that goes a little something like this. "There is self-evidently no logical or metaphysical link requiring that something with a finite past, comes into being necessarily. "Let us do some substitution and see what happens. There is self-evidently no logical or metaphysical link requiring that a house with a finite past, comes into being necessarily. Hmmmm. .. the house wasn't built? I can't quite bring myself to accept that proposition. It seems therefore that it is indeed self-evident that something with a finite past, comes into being. At least that can certainly be argued in the vast majority of cases. .. why the universe is an exception is something Con should explain. And perhaps he should give us actual evidence that a finite past does not necessarily mean coming into being. Rebuttal 3Con says the following "All we know is that the universe has a finite past, that does not mean that it came into being"Well. .. if it does not mean that the universe came into being. .. then does it mean that the universe did not come into being? My ArgumentsA lot of my arguments in the previous round were not addressed. First of all there is the "energy argument" as Con calls it. I argued that energy(elementary particles) existed at or before the beginning of the universe, like ingredients, but there is no explanation for how the ingredients(elementary particles) came together to form the universe in all it's complexity and diversity. The quantum level is still not understood very well, and is as such new territory. This does not however justify the proposition that a phenomenon on the quantum level has no cause. Just because a cause is not known, does not mean that it is not there. Yet this is exactly what Con proposes. The KCA argument essentially states that anything that begins to exist has a cause. Why should this not apply to the quantum level of existence? Quantum fluctuations are not excempt from having causes. Neither their size nor their nature means that they have no cause. As such any event or phenomenon of any scale is included in the first premise of the KCA argument. That also applies to anything with a finite past, unless there is evidence that said thing essentially has no past at all and is eternal. If it has a past, it has a cause according to the KCA argument. Based on that premise only something eternal is exempt. There is no evidence to suggest that the universe, which began with the big bang, is eternal. Therefore the universe had a cause, no matter how tiny, spontaneous or insignificant it may seem. A cause by definition is "a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result"[2]. Under this definition there is no way for Con to claim that the universe has not been caused. Whether it was a quantum fluctuation, a quantum tunneling event, or anything else. If the universe exists as a result of any occurence, phenomenon, event, action, or for any reason at all it was caused by said reason. The KCA argues that the universe was caused. And as such scientific evidence, such as the Big Bang supports that idea. The B-Theory only proves that the universe did not have a cause under one condition. And that condition is that the universe does not have a finite past. The universe must have no past at all for the B-theory to preclude a cause. Unfortunately I do not have space to argue why God was the cause, I did already provide the gist of the argument in previous rounds however. Some of which were completely ignored or overlooked by Con. It has never the less been a pleasure debating. .. though there wasn't enough time or space to take things all the way. I hope I at the very least gave readers some food for thought. 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...