The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

I look forward to this challenge but this is my first debate so please be gentle with me. KCA 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. This should be a given. Something can not be made by nothing. KCA 2) The universe began to exist. This seems to be your argument, that it did not "begin". Although there are exceptions, based on the known facts, most scientists agree that the universe is expanding. They also agree that it is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and that this fact points to the universe having both a beginning and an end. If the universe is expanding, logic dictates that it had a beginning. If you reverse the expansion, and follow the contraction back in time, at some point it would become so small that it would cease to exist. The age of the universe is estimated to be 6-20 billion years. If something has an age, that can be estimated, it must have had a beginning. If the universe had no beginning, then it must be infinite. Again, science is against that idea. Actual infinities do not exist in the physical world, to my knowledge. They can only be theorized, thus are only potential infinities. Imagine drawing a circle. Once complete, it would appear to be infinite. However, once you put pencil to paper is the point where the circle began. As it had a beginning, the circle is not an actual infinite. Much of your argument centers around time, so I'll address that issue. Con: "If the universe began to exist, this means that time began to exist. But time beginning to exist is self refuting. In order for time to begin to exist, there must be a past where time did not exist. But you can't have a "past" unless time exists in the first place." 1) For something to begin to exist, there must be a point in the past where it did not exist 2) IF time began to exist, there was a point in the past where time did not exist 2b) Time would have to not exist in the past. Not existing in the past can only happen where time exist Time did, indeed, begin to exist, and there is a past in which time did not exist. Although there are many definitions of time, for the purposes of our debate, it is nothing more than a way to measure change/movement, list events chronologically, or describe an era(past, present, future). Time is a concept and measurement invented by humans, it did not come built in to the universe. Many humans lived before "time" existed. Once we invented time, we decided to call everything prior to now, the past. Since it happened prior to the present, the beginning of the universe would be included in "the past". Just prior to the beginning of the universe is also part of "the past", and as such, was there before time. I don't believe that this argument refutes the KCA because it simply makes a comparison of 2 words, that measure 2 different things. Time is how we measure movement or change, the past is an era or period, and has no beginning point unless we assign it one. For instance, I believe that God created the universe, so obviously I believe that there was a point when the universe did not exist. If the universe didn't exist then the physical actions that time measures couldn't exist. Even though time didn't exist, that period is still part of the past because it happened prior to the present. Con: 3) Time is part of the universe 4) Therefore part of the universe did not begin to exist 5) Therefore the claim that the universe began to exist is false I will agree with #3, to the extent, that time is as much a part of the universe as feet and pounds are. Time is simply a way to measure, and as such, is not a physical property of the universe. The universe can, and did exist without our system of measures. Since time, itself, is not necessary for the universe to exist, I believe 4 and 5 fail to refute the KCA. KCA 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. I believe that premise 1, along with my reasons under premise 2, support this statement. KCA 4) Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent) No scientific, or natural, explanation can be found. In addition, most hypothesized causal accounts violate the universal physical laws, that we know to hold true. When no natural cause exists, we must conclude that the cause is supernatural. I look forward to hearing from con in round 2. http://plato.stanford.edu...