Kalam argument is sound

Apologies but I will have to respond early due to a lack of time over the next three days.1. Attacking conclusions" I intend to show that P1 and P2 depend on unwarranted assumptions, and therefore the conclusion does not necessarily follow the premises" This is what you originally wrote which is false. Even if the premises were disproved that would not mean that the argument is not valid. A valid argument is one where the deductive structure permits the conclusion to follow from the premises. So An invalid argument would be (1) Socrates is Greek(2) Greek is a languageConclusion : Socrates is a language.The above argument is invalid because the premises do not logically flow into the conclusion due to the fallacy of equivocation yet the argument is sound because each of those premises are true that Socrates is ethnically a Greek and that there is also a language called Greek. A sound argument is one where the premises are more plausibly true than their negation so even showing the premises to be false does not meant that the argument is not logically deductively valid. You would be attacking soundness of the argument not the validity of the argument.2. Composition fallacy"Let's examine Pro's example of "if every brick of the wall is yellow then the wall will be yellow" and replace the bricks and walls with causes and universes."But that is simply not my line of reasoning though. I am NOT arguing that because everything in this universe from galaxies to atoms has a cause then the universe itself has a cause. That would be fallacious. You are constructing a strawman and then attacking it. The kalam cosmological argument does NOT read "Because all of the parts of the universe have a cause for their beginning, then universe itself as a whole has a cause for its beginning". The first premise is that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" which is confirmed by inductive reasoning once and deductive reasoning twice. I have never used reasoning by composition. Again for the second time, I am not arguing that because every single entity in this universe has a cause of its beginning then the universe itself has a beginning that has a cause. I am arguing that whatever begins to exist has a cause because that is true inductively and deductively. (scroll down)"Pro is taking a property of everything within the universe and applying that property to the universe as a whole" Nowhere did I do that. My first proof is based on an a priori definition of nothing, the second on the principle of sufficient reasoning and the third on a reductio ad absurdum. Again for the third time, I am not using reasoning by composition. For example, saying that humans (the whole) are invisible because atoms (parts) that make up humans are also invisible would be an example of the fallacy of composition. I have NOT argued that because every single entity in the universe from galaxies to babies has a cause of their beginning so the universe has a cause of their beginning rather the reasons I gave are these.(1) A priori definition of nothing(2) Principle of sufficient reason(3) Reductio ad absurdum Which one of these three reasons says "every single part within the universe has a cause so the universe as a whole itself has a cause"?Con's objection was literally featured on Craig's top ten worst objections to the Kalam argument. [1]"but you cannot use inductive reasoning to support a deductive argument. .... Since the Kalama Argument is, by my opponent's own admission, deductive, then any inductive reasoning is fully null and void."I have not asserted that the Kalam is a solely deductive argument. It has a deductive FORM but that does not mean that I can not use both deductive and inductive evidence. Con just asserts without evidence that you can not use inductive reasoning to support a deductive argument. Thankfully, even if Con's bare assertion is true, then his point is moot since I use inductive evidence not to support the conclusion but to support the premises within the argument. Con also confuses the difference between inductive and deductive. Deductive reasoning is when you use a general rule to make conclusions and inductive reasoning is when you use patterns and examples to infer a general rule. So I can use inductive reasoning to make general rules from patterns and then use those general rules from inductive evidence to make a conclusion such as "whatever begins to exist has a cause". According to Con, Science is fully null and void since Science uses inductive reasoning to support deductive arguments. [2]3. Metaphysics of causation"My point was merely that if induction is all we need to conclude a metaphysical absolute"Yes. That's why I provided two deductive proofs as well that Con has not even addressed."then there are other absolutes we can conclude as well that destroy the Kalam Argument."This simply is not true. None of Con's examples seem to succeed. 4. Examples of metaphysicsEven if Con's examples succeed, they still lack the multiple lines of deductive evidence that my first premise has.Material things are only caused by other material things: Con seems to think that it is ok to exclude the supernatural but that is simply not true. Con's example would not work metaphysically since Con does not know whether or not the supernatural exists or not. So Con's example can not assume whether the supernatural exists or not since Con can not prove it and since Con does not know whether or not the supernatural exists then his example is not metaphysically true. The supernatural could exist ... we do not know. By induction, we have a lot of experience with the supernatural. [3] So this example crumbles since we do have inductive exeprience with the supernatural where material effects like adam and eve are made by immaterial causes like God. And if the supernatural exists then Con's example is demolished. However, to simply assume that the supernatural does not exist in order to dismiss the kalam argument (which establishes the supernatural) as false would be fallacious. Now a problem arises. Con's objection is circular reasoning since Con begins by assuming that the supernatural does not exist (as he did in this example) in order to prove that the supernatural does not exist (rejecting the conclusion of the Kalam cosmological argument)Nothing is ever caused by an entity that is not itself within time: My illustration with the human timelssly causing footprints in the sand was merely to show that you can have timeless causation and not to form an analogy to the creation of the big bang. This is yet again an example of a strawman. The example of the sand and man illustration was for a specific point (to demonstrate timeless causation) which Con then misrepresented to use in other areas (as with saying that my analogy was for defeating the passage of time) thus Con's practice of misusing what I intended by an analogy is a strawman. Con notes that this example would destroy Kalam since Kalam needs the passage of time. However, I used this timeless illustration merely to show that timeless causation is possible. I did not in any way claim that this timeless reality is representative of our reality. Con puts a dichotomy for me asking "does time pass or not" The answer is yes. In our reality time passes and things can begin to exist. However, my illustration was to show that timeless causation is possible not to analogize this illustration to our reality.All Minds are physically embodied: For all we know is that all minds are immaterial and are not physical according to some philosophies of the mind. [4] Moreover, we have no inductive experience of physical minds. Can you point me to at least one example where the mind is physical? There is not a single example I can think of where the "mind" contains mass and occupies a certain volume like let's say 10 metres wide and 20 metres long so by induction Con's example is false since all of our experiences with the mind are immaterial."f Pro wants to use universal observation to declare metaphysical absolutes, then we can use the same method to arrive at all kinds of absolutes that render the Kalam Argument impossible."I have not used inductive reasoning alone. I have used two deductive proofs of the first premise. All of Con's examples fail.5. Semantics on time"All my opponent does here is merely call foul. You can define things all you want, but you don't get to complain when those definitions are attacked or questioned."However, Con is not allowed to go in and change the definition of one of my premises then just declare that my argument is unwarranted. Recall the bible example where I would present manuscript evidence to show that the bible's textual integrity and textual content has "evolved" overtime where evolved means changed overtime. Now Imagine if Con goes into my definitions, changes them completely and changes the definition of evolved into changes in genome over successive generations and then declares that my evidence (manuscripts) does not prove my point with their new definition of evolved as a natural organism over successive generations and then declare that my argument that the textual integrity of the bible has "evolved" is unwarranted since there is no evidence that the bible's genome evolved overtime. Such a practice would be incredibly ridicolous. Yet that is exactly what Con attempts to do."Sure, "began to exist" refers to a finite past, but that assumes the past is finite, specifically, it assumes an A Theory of time."Absolutely false. The past could still be finite under B theory [5] so Con's point is completely false."I am not challenging that "began to exist" works when the past is finite - that is quite true." Con virtually conceeds this point at this line by agreeing that "begins to exist" could be defined as having a finite past and thus he agrees with me that this is a valid definition thus he conceeds in print that there is conflict over defintions.