The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

I thank con for his comments. Because of limited space, and the need to get my closing in now, so my opponent can respond to anything new, I'm going to put off responding to my opponent's round 4 remarks, until round 5. I apologize but ddo doesn't allow me enough space to do both, in one round. 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. My opponent challenges the "something from nothing" concept. Admittedly, I did say that in my opening. I later looked at it, and realized there's a reason that P1 is worded the way that it is, instead of simply saying "You can't get something from nothing". It would be a grave contradiction to argue in favor of an eternal God, yet also argue that there was a point where there was "nothing". Although I didn't word it the way I am now, I did try to make a correction in round 3. So although similar, P1 doesn't argue that you can't get something from nothing. It simply says that if something begins, something else caused that beginning. My opponent has an opportunity in round 5, to respond to this premise as it is written, but I can't imagine any challenge. If there is a challenge, I would hope that an example of something that began to exist without a cause, would be included. 2) The universe began to exist. No matter how confident we are, in our beliefs, there is no concrete proof, no knockout blow, that either of us can provide to meet our burden of proof, on this premise. All we can hope to show is that it is more likely that it began, or more likely that it didn't begin. Even if I didn't believe in God, the vast amount of information, available for researching this topic, would have swayed me to conclude that it is more likely that the universe began. That information includes known, and widely accepted, scientific facts like cosmic expansion, that leads the world's greatest scientists to conclude, that the universe did, indeed, have a beginning. I could post numerous links, like the one below, from scientists all over the world, saying that the universe had a beginning. Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Nasa, Seti, and many more, are in agreement on this. We should also consider the fact that most of the scientific community, argues against the existence of God, and they would know that an admission that there was a beginning is a point for creationists. One can imagine that they would not make that admission lightly, without trying to disprove it, but they are obligated to follow the evidence. There is also a good, logical reason that the past universe can't be infinite. Let's say that all positive numbers are in the future, all negative numbers are in the past, and 0 is the present. You can start today, 0, and count up infinitely into the future. That works because you will never reach the end, and you are traveling in the same direction that time does. You can't do that with the past, though. You can start at 0 and count backwards to an infinite negative number, but when you add time to the mix, you're traveling in the opposite direction that time does, so you have to start counting somewhere in the past, and work upward toward the present, 0. That creates a problem for the infinite past universe, because in order to work, the way that we know the world works, you have to pick a "beginning" point, in the past, to start counting. That's not the only problem though. Once you pick that starting point, and start counting up, you will eventually reach 0, the present. Once you reach the present, the past has ended, which means that you do not have an infinity. Even given an infinite amount of negative numbers, you could never count up through an infinite amount of numbers, to reach 0, so you could never reach the present. All this combined should lead one to conclude that it is much more likely, that the universe had a beginning. http://www.phy.syr.edu... 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. If you accept premises 1 and 2, this should follow, logically. I can't imagine a challenge to this premise, that doesn't originate from one of the earlier premises. I did run across a challenge, to the KCA, using this particular premise, arguing that the universe caused itself. I really hope we don't have to go there in this debate. Whether you believe in God, or subscribe to one of the scientific theories, that attempt to explain the origin of the universe, you must admit that if the universe began, then there was a cause of that beginning. 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 Can you imagine the odds of everything coming together, by chance, in just the right balance and just the right temperature for life?? Not only is life existent, but we came with just the right mix of chemicals to give us breathable air. We have drinkable water, and food sources to sustain us in the future, just by chance. No where else, in the cosmos, can we find a place where any earthly animal can survive, without space suits. We have to take some of our earth with us anytime we leave our atmosphere. Imagine completely disassembling a rolex and putting all those tiny parts in a bag, then shaking it up. Do you think you'll ever get that rolex to reassemble with the right time, just by chance?? That's what you're arguing for, if you argue that the universe is just here, by chance. I usually don't quote scripture, in this type of discussion, but to me this is relevant. Ecclisiastes 3:11, "…..no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." No man can find out God's works, from the beginning. Though I was raised Christian, I've always had an interest in the sciences. It amazes me how so many people claim a conflict between the two, but we could have an entirely different debate about science, and the Bible. Everyone is biased, in their beliefs about God, but what if you were able to view scientific findings, or as it relates to this debate, the lack of ability to find scientific proof, from an unbiased perspective?? Or try to find a way to make science and religion compatible. If you could, then verses, like the one I quoted from, would make perfect sense. No man can find out God's works from beginning to end. Maybe that's why we can't find that knockout punch, that proves conclusively how, why, or when, the universe did or didn't begin. Maybe that's why we can prove some things, but we can't go any further back, so we can only hypothesize. Maybe that's why we can prove that some things will happen in the future, but can only theorize, past that point. Maybe that's why we can't find a way to test our theories, or have to reject others because they are unfalsifiable. Maybe the Creator has built roadblocks to our ability to know things. What if He knew that, the more knowledge we attained, the more arrogant we would become?? We've certainly proven that to be true. Maybe He put that immovable field in place as a way of making us humble ourselves, and admit that there may be something bigger, wiser, and more important, than ourselves. I can't "prove" to you that the universe was created by God. If I could, it would invalidate the Bible, as well as Christianity itself. One can provide all kinds of proof, but the hard part is persuading people to accept it. On the other hand, in spite of centuries of trying, no one has been able to disprove God, or the Bible, or prove that He didn't create the universe. In absence of that proof, either way, I hope you conclude that it's more likely that a higher power, with a plan, designed and created the universe, and all it's complexities.