The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Logically Sound

A hearty thanks to my opponent for an intriguing debate and some interesting objections.I must, however, object to Con's introductory paragraph. He seems to be under the assumption that since I am not tasked to prove that God exists, that God is somehow irrelevant to the topic at hand and/or God can not be appealed to. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is used to prove the existence of a God, but all the argument truly proves is that the Universe has a cause. Thus the argument isn't contingent on God's existence, but God is certainly relevant to the topic.Con's ObjectionsBefore we start, let's take a summarized look at Con's objections so we can answer each one of them and hopefully resolve his issues with the KCA: P1 commits the fallacy of equivocation in regards to ex nihilo and ex materia. P1 commits the fallacy of composition. P1 is disproved by uncaused Quantum events. The problem of infinite regress applies to all causes and is thus irrelevant. The Big Bang Theory does not prove the universe came into existence ex nihilo Special Pleading in there somewhere too Well then, five problems with the KCA! This must be a pretty bad argument if Con is correct. Let us examine his allegations to see if they are correct. Defending P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Does P1 commit the fallacy of composition? This contention is perhaps the easiest to address. The fallacy of composition is when you identify a property of the parts of a whole, and thus, assume that the whole has that same property [1]. An example of this would be to claim that because atoms are invisible, and human beings are made of atoms, human beings are also invisible. Fortunately, the KCA simply does not do that. It is treating everything individually as a part. For example, the argument does not read: "Because all of the parts of the universe have a cause for their beginning, the universe as a whole requires a cause for its beginning". This adds language to the KCA that simply does not exist. Even the philosophical argument used to prove that the Universe must have an external cause (the problem of infinite regress) and the scientific argument (The Big Bang) treats the universe as an individual part, and not a whole. Thus claiming that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both formal logic and the argument at hand. Does P1 commit the fallacy of equivocation? Here Con once again demonstrates a misunderstanding of the premise as well as the fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation is when a word is used in a misleading manner with two definitions [2]. For example:"The sign said "fine for parking here", so since it was fine, I parked there"Now, Con claims that the first premise of the KCA equivocates in regards to creatio ex materia andcreatio ex nihilo. Since P1 of the KCA reads: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence" then Con is essentially claiming that the phrase "begins to exist" is equivocating. To satisfy this objection, let us further define "begins to exist" as: comes into being. To illustrate, let's say p (the object in question) exists at t (for time), if p does not exist for any time prior to t, and exists for any period of time after t, then at time t p began to exist.That's it. There is no mention of ex nihilo or ex materia. To claim that P1 is guilty of equivocation is a red herring because the premise simply isn't concerned with how or from where the being came into existence!Unfortunately, the problems with Con's objection don't end here. Con claims that because ex nihilo nihil fit ("from nothing nothing comes") is true, then creatio ex nihilo ("creation from nothing") is untrue. But ex nihilo nihil fit refers to the fact that nothing can come from nothing uncaused. Whereas creatio ex nihilo refers to something coming into existence via a cause. Thus Con is committing the fallacy special pleading by claiming that creatio ex nihilo is somehow impossible! Furthermore, the only evidence supporting Con's claim that creatio ex nihilo is impossible is the fact that we've never seen it happen! But this is an argument from ignorance! It is also true that we haven't observed every thing come into existence ex materia. Thus by the same logic, it is possible that the next hamburger I buy could come into existence uncaused.As if that wasn't bad enough, ex materia and ex nihilo aren't the only options regarding a being coming into existence. It is also possible that the universe came into existence ex deo ("from God"). So even if we grant Con that creatio ex nihilo is impossible, this does nothing to invalidate the argument, since not only is P1 unconcerned with the means through which something comes into existence, but ex nihilo and ex materia are not the only options.Does Quantum Mechanics disprove P1?Here Con attempts to use QM to prove that some things can come into existence ex materia uncaused. He uses examples of radioactive decay and virtual particles coming into existence from Quantum Vacuums.In regards to radioactive decay, asside from the fact that is more of a case of something coming out of existence, the claim that radioactive decay is spontaneous a baseless assertion. For one, while radioactive decay appears to be uncaused, it still decays at a constant rate. In fact, if radioactive decay rates were not constant radiometric dating methods would be flawed and the entire science community should be notified immediately. Essentially, one can assert that radioactive decay rates are uncaused. But this is merely an argument from ignorance: "it has not been proven that radioactive decay has a cause therefore radioactive decay does not have a cause". There's a difference between something not having a cause, and having an unknown cause. Furthermore, there is recent evidence that radioactive decay rates are influenced by neutrinos from the sun. [3]In regards to Quantum Physics, Con's assertion that virtual particles coming into being from a quantum vaccuum is also merely an assertion. There are numerous interpretations of Quantum Mechanics [4] and only a few of them are non-deterministic (not requiring a cause), primarily the the Copenhagen interpretation [5]. Thus Con must prove that all deterministic (requiring a cause) interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are false in order for his argument to hold water.Rebutting Con's Rebuttal To My Philosophical ArgumentUnfortunately, Con has failed in entirety to rebut this argument! He has completely failed to satisfy the paradox of infinite regress and has merely dismissed it claiming essentially that "It's as much a problem for you as it is for me!" But the paradox of infinite regress does nothing to undermine the KCA. All it does is narrow down our choices for primal causes to those that satisfy the paradox. For example, let's say the primal cause of the universe was an omnipotent being (or at least extremely powerful) who was both transcendant of natural laws and was conscious (therefore possessing free will). If this is true, then that being would be able to have an infinite amount of opportunities to create the universe, however, since he possessed free will he would not be required to create the universe at any of those opportunities. Thus the paradox of infinite regress is satisfied if the primal cause of the universe is God.The Big Bang TheoryI never claimed that the Big Bang Theory proved that the universe came into existence ex nihilo. Merely that it began to exist at some point.ConclusionCon has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the argument at hand, as well as seeing fallacies in the argument that simply aren't there. Con's objections do not hold water and thus I have upheld my BOP. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a logically sound argument.Vote 4 meh plz. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org......[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......[3] http://news.stanford.edu......[4] http://en.wikipedia.org......[5] http://en.wikipedia.org......