Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

Instead of making completely unsubstantiated claims, you should actually attempt to refute my points instead of just saying, "No it doesn't", or "Most of your comment was irrelevant to my actual argument, so I didn't include that nonsense in my response. You lost the debate."I am going to use warp.povusers.org for this.Flaws 1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. On what grounds is this assumption made? Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist" in the sense that the arrangement of matter that people agree are "tables" and "chairs" begin to "exist" when someone arranges the matter in those precise ways. However, that's not what the premise is arguing. The matter itself didn't "begin to exist". It was just rearranged. The argument refers to first there being nothing, and then something beginning to exist. This is an unfounded premise which cannot just be assumed without any justification, and currently there is no justification to make it according to known physics. According to current knowledge energy (which is what matter consists of) cannot be created nor destroyed. The energy that exists in this universe is, as far as we know, permanent: It doesn't change. Nothing of it can be destroyed, nor can it be created. The only thing that can happen is for the energy to change from one state to another, but the total amount is always preserved. Comparing concepts like "the chair began to exist when the carpenter created it" and "the universe began to exist", and considering them equivalent, would be a fallacy of equivocation. It's certainly not the same thing. (In the first case nothing actually came into existence. A more accurate assessment would be that matter was transformed from one shape to another.) Did the energy in this universe "begin to exist" at some point, or has it always existed (the definition of "always" not being trivial, as we will see later)? This is currently an unknown. There is no justification to say either way. Thus, especially in this context, there is no justification to say that it did begin to exist. Hence the premise is unfounded. 2) Even if we make the assumption that energy "began to exist", the second assumption made by the premise is also unfounded: That it must have had a cause for it beginning to exist. Again, there is no justification for this claim according to modern knowledge of physics. For example, according to current knowledge, in quantum mechanics so-called virtual particles begin to exist (in a sense) without any cause for their existence. Their appearance is spontaneous and stochastic. (Spontaneous means that there is no external cause for the phenomenon happening, and stochastic means that it's not possible to predict when or where it will happen, in other words, the phenomenon is completely non-deterministic and uncaused.) It is currently unknown whether the energy in this universe has always existed or if it appeared spontaneously (inside a "metaverse", possibly paired with a "negative universe" with an equal amount of "negative energy"). There is no justification to make a claim one way or the other. It is certainly not completely out of question that it was a phenomenon without a deterministic cause. 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence. Unfounded assumption. We don't know if the universe began to exist or if it has "always" existed in some form. (The Big Bang theory does not state that the universe began to exist. It only states that at some point all the universe was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, from which it expanded. It does not make claims on where that point came from or what happened "before".) It's possible that this universe did begin to exist, but that the phenomenon was spontaneous and uncaused. (If there is a "metaverse" inside which our universe resides, this kind of phenomenon might be happening all the time, eg. with positive-negative pairs of "universes" popping up spontaneously. This is one possibility among many.) 3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence. The conclusion is invalid because the two premises are invalid. (It might be true, but there's no justification for making the claim.MATTER CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.Also, even if the argument proved true and was sound, all it would prove is that the universe had a cause. It would NOT prove the existence of any specific diety or subsect of as religion.My argument contains no Straw Man flaws.And so, to put it in terms you would understand, SORRY, BUT YOU LOST THE DEBATE