Kalam Cosmological Argument is a firm argument for the existence of God

I thank my opponents for his response. For reference, here is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause I will respond to the objections in order. WHY A PERSONAL BEING? Well we know that the cause of the universe is a personal being through the laws of deduction. This is because the cause of the universe has to be an uncaused, timeless (and therefore changeless), immaterial, and changeless. The only two possibilities that fit this criteria are either abstract objects, or an unembodied mind or conscience. And because abstract objects cannot cause anything, the cause of the universe has to be an unembodied mind - which by definition has to be personal. WHY THE GOD OF THE BIBLE? The simple fact here is that the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't even ATTEMPT to prove the God of the Bible! Rather, it comes to the conclusion of a monotheistic religion - i.e Christianity, Islam or Judaism. To prove the God of the Bible would require other (such as the Historical) arguments. COUNTER-ARGUMENT I really do not get this objection, and I would appreciate it if pro would elaborate on it. COUNTEREXAMPLE So the main objection here is to do with quantum mechanics. But there is a big issue here. The objection he has to the first premise is that the laws of cause and effect do not apply quantum mechanics And therefore not everything has a cause. However, I think the objector will find that when scientists say that quantum events are 'uncaused', That is not at all what they mean. After all, it is absolutely logically impossible for ANYTHING to exist with no previous cause. Rather, the cause is defined as a non-material cause. These so called uncaused events are usually due to Fluctuations in the quantum vacuum which is NOT nothing! As for the fluctuations themselves, they will have come into existence at the time of the beginning of the universe (so the cause of the fluctuations will have been they cause of the universe). The cause of these quantum events have a cause and so nothing has been achieved by bringing uncaused quantum events into the argument. In the case of radioactive decay, it is actually caused by these fluctuations. Even so, Carbon-12 is made of the same particles as Carbon-14 and so nothing has really 'come into existence' - 2 neutrons have decayed from C-14 to form C-12. Not to mention the decay is actually very constant over time, which is how Carbon-dating is calculated. To give an analogy, If someone chopped my arm off, nothing new will have come into existence! But for the sake of argument, Let's say we grant the objection. Still, it would nevertheless be worthless, as we could then re-arrange the KCA to state the following: 1) If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning. (established before) 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning This argument does not include quantum events and so the so called 'uncaused' quantum events are redundant. CIRCULARITY To address Dan Barker's argument, I will refer you directly to William Lane Craig's response, from http://www.reasonablefaith.org... " If this really is Barker"s argument, then he needs to go back to the drawing board. The first premiss of the kalam cosmological argument is 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The statement you quote doesn"t say anything about the requirement that things that begin to exist need to have a cause. So the statements aren"t synonymous. If you substitute Barker"s (alleged ) premiss for (1), then the kalam cosmological argument becomes patently invalid. For from Barker"s premiss and 2. The universe began to exist. it wouldn"t follow that 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. So it"s obvious that the proposed substitute has a different meaning than (1). In fact, Barker"s (alleged) premiss is just an application of the Law of Excluded Middle: (A or not-A). Everything either has a beginning or does not have a beginning. How could this logically necessary truth be question-begging? I suppose it could be if you were trying to prove the Law itself, but that is obviously not the aim. Now as for the claim that if God is the sole member of the class of things that don"t begin to exist, then "everything that doesn"t begin to exist" becomes synonymous with "God," this is just a confusion of meaning and reference. If God is the only member of the class of beginningless things, than the two expressions have the same referent, that is to say, they pick out the same object. But that in no way shows that the two expressions have the same meaning. If they did, then in knowing one statement to be true, you would know the other to be true as well, which is obviously not the case. Finally, it seems to me that (pseudo-)Barker is taking his substitute premiss to be an existential statement. He seems to think that it commits us to the existence of beings that begin to exist and to God, which, he thinks, begs the question of God"s existence. This is to fail to understand his own premiss. The "there are" at most commits us to the existence of classes (or as he puts it, categories). But the class of things that are beginningless could be empty. So there"s no commitment to God"s existence. In any case, if there were such a commitment, adding another member to that class wouldn"t make the premiss any less question-begging, since you"d still be presupposing God"s existence. I think the "there are" in his premiss is just a rhetorical device. The premiss should be understood as the claim that "Everything either has a beginning or it does not." That is what is called a universally quantified statement, and as such it makes no existential commitments. " If there are more objections I would appreciate it if Pro laid them out in the next round