The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

"Now, I would argue that even if the total sum of the universe is not zero, the conservation of energy would not be violated assuming the universe came into being. This is because that which could be described by the law would have started to exist at the exact same time as the first bit of energy. The law would never be violated, as energy would still be conserved for as long as the universe existed." Lets review cons very last sentence here. He says basically that the universe is not infinite, so he must agree there was a beginning because he is saying that until the universe existed, there was no laws such as the conservation of mass, as it must have just became into being the same the "universe existed". In other words, before it was created. So now that I understand con believes in a universe that is not an infinite amount of year old; how does a universe just appear? How does it have a beginning with nothing to put it in motion. whether a particle is positive or negative energy something had to put in in motion. If i sealed off a box with absolutely nothing in it, that eventually i could open in up one day to find things within it? Think about the concept, NOTHING. this means no fields of energy, no matter, no energy, absolutely nothing. no photons, quarks, waves, or fields. These properties had to be created before they could act. What I mean is that you can not say there is nothing and then be like "ohh, but we still have the quantum field", that does not count. that is something, not nothing. So even though in the video the guy says a universe can come from nothing, he has not really defined what nothing is. do energy fields still exist in this nothing? Give me evidence of a space filled with nothing, be turned into being filled with something, in order to prove me wrong It would be required to show a scientific experiment or example in which a closed system without absolutely nothing in it, spontaneously spawned something within it. All of the statements I made regarding the bible was to provide evidence that there was a god involved in forming the universe. First off, con took my run on sentence and dismantled it to make it appear as if they are all their separate point when they are meant to shed some light on how likely it would really be that all of these coincidences don't mean something. explain how all of the following can possibly happen without there being a god to make this happen. (all of this happens within a 9 month span during the time of the birth of Jesus Christ) -If you were to follow the path that Jupiter takes it makes a "halo" shape around the star Regulus -as predicted in the bible a virgin covered in the sun appears with the moon at her feat. This occurred when the Constellation Virgo, the virgin appeared in the sky during the daytime with the sun overlapping the constellation, and the moon was at her feet. I will come back to this later -Jupiter made its three halo shaped rings at the feet of the constellation, Leo the Lion. -Solid proof of the star of Bethlehem -Star of Bethlehem was super bright with the brightness of Venus and Jupiter combined now lets review the names of the planets, stars, and constellations reviewed. -Jupiter; king and father planet -Venus, Mother planet -Regulus, King planet -Leo the lion -Virgo the Virgin So with all of these points made, it seems very unrealistic that all of this could happen without a universe created by a god. First off, it seems peculiar that all of the planets and stars, when they were shot off in the universe by whatever means the pro believes (most likely big bang I would assume, however this is not important) that they were done so in a matter that all of the following situations would happen which I explained above. Keep in mind that all of this happened within a nine month span only, which in astronomical terms is a ridiculously small amount of time. Now, not only did all the actions happen but how the constellations, planets, and stars were named, they all happened to have significance to what was happening at the time. Take a look at Leo the lion, lets take a look at the odds that it was named as being a lion. Regarding to this topic about Leo, my opponent stated that "This has nothing to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Also, my opponent is twisting the implications of probability fallaciously. What are the odds that I chose to McDonalds over any other possible restaurant? We can say that everything is improbable based in this flawed reasoning. " Con says this in a way that implies that we can not deduce anything from probabilities and is unreasonably trying to diminish the significance of my point by comparing it to something trivial such as choosing a restaurant. I will humor your model and say what I am proposing is more like this. You are hungry, you have limited cash on you, you love fast food, the McDouble is your favorite sandwich, you say McDonald fries are the best, Ronald is your child hood hero, you have a closet filled with McDonald's memorabilia. Odds are not going to go to olive garden, just as with what I have stated, odds are, the universe was created by a God. Now back to the naming of Leo, which comes from the name of a lion defeated by Hercules. now this constellation could have been named after Argus, Odysseus' dog, Laelaps, or even one of Helios' Cattle. The Constellation does not really have a feature that really defines it as being Leo, It is a generic enough of a shape to call many sorts of names but of course it is called Leo. Now how about Virgo the virgin? This name obviously also holds significance. Since it is the figure which resembles a person it could have been called literally any person in Greek mythology. Even if we limit it to just females it could have been Persephone, Demeter, Penelope, Hera, Athena, Aphrodite, etc. The point of all of this is, is to give validity to the bible, and based on these accounts actually being historically accurate it gives proof to the existence of a god, a God who created the universe because if he did not, it is unlikely that all of those events previously mentioned would happen at all. I will admit that my second main argument about the bible does not have much to do with Kalam upon a second review, and in interest of not wasting cons time. will resign, but only if it is requested.