The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

"The very nature if a universe that has a beginning means that the materialistic context there at one point was nothing as Dr. Craig defines it. " The problem with this is that it is absolutely false. There is nothing about the universe being finite into the past which suggests that "at one point there was nothing". This is simply a non-sequitur fallacy. At one one point there was a initial universal state some time in the past, The problem is there is no evidence to reason to believe that there"s a point prior to the initial universal state at which nothing exists. There is nothing irrational once so ever in denying that the beginning of the universe requires a cause. Lets unpack the idea of "at one point there was nothing". First off, The sentence itself is not even logically coherent. A "point" is still "something", So at one "point" there was "nothing" does not make any sense. Also "was" is a past tense term which implies time. So the idea there "was" nothing makes no sense, As "was" implies the existence of time (which is not nothing). Also, "nothing" has no potential. Therefore, If there ever "was" nothing (which doesn"t even make any sense by itself) then the universe would not exist (out of nothing, Nothing comes). Yet, Here we are. Therefore we can rule out the idea that there ever was a point at which nothing existed. In other words, Claiming that the Atheist is committed to the notion that there was a point at which nothing existed is a straw-man fallacy. There was a point at which the universe was packed together and extremely dense (the initial universal state). This state existed some time ago. The picture here is that there are no "points" beyond this initial point. It"s not as if (A) There existed a point at which nothing exists, Then the universe pops into existence But rather (B) There existed a point at which the universe was compact and dense So it"s not as if the universe came from nothing, Or that it came from something, There is simply no reason to think it "came from" at all! The universe simply existed at that point in the finite past and expanded. That is it. No cause needed; there never was nothing. The first "point" is the initial universal state. There is no reason why the Atheist must accept that there existed nothing prior the the universe, When that makes no logical sense. So, Denying P1 is only irrational if denying P1 commits them to the position that at first nothing existed, And then the universe just popped into being out of some prior nothingness. As I have showed, Such a situation is impossible. Out of nothing, Nothing comes. Since denying P1 does not commit one to the notion that there ever was nothing, Then one is completely rational and reasonable to reject P1; there could be no "prior" to the universe at all. My opponent has not shown that the denier of P1 is committed to the notion that there was ever nothing. One can reject P1 rationally, As rejecting P1 does not commit one to the notion that the universe sprang into being from some prior nothing. There might not even be a "prior" to the first universal state. "When Dr. Craig says that science and experience confirm P1 he is saying that nothing pops into existence from nothing that that confirms P1. " This logic is extremely flawed. First off, I agree that things cannot just pop into existence out of nothing. That doesn"t mean I have to accept P1 as true. One can reject P1 and still agree that out of nothing, Nothing comes (this is the point I do not think my opponent is grasping here). The picture of an Atheistic universe where all physical reality had a beginning, But that this initial point existed some finite time ago without a cause DOES NOT commit the Atheist to the position that the universe popped into existence out of nothing. I don"t know how many times I have to stress this point. There was no point at which there was nothing, There was only a point at which the universe was extremely compact some finite time ago, Which expanded. There is simply no good reason given by my opponent as to why this requires a cause. Another reason this logic is flawed is it goes by this formula: F: If we have no examples of X, That confirms the premise that X is never the case The problem with this logic is that it doesn"t work. There was one time we had no examples of other planets, We know other planets exist. There was one time we had no examples of quantum fluctuations, We know quantum fluctuations occur. So just because we have no examples now of something coming into being without a cause, That fact alone would not entail it could not happen. Also if we follow this formula, As I have argued, We can conclude Atheism is true. We have no examples of minds without brains, Which confirms Atheism. We have no examples of anything supernatural causing matter to exist, Which confirms the premise that no supernatural being created matter. Clearly this line of reasoning is flawed and must be rejected. In conclusion, There is no reason to accept the first premise is true. Even if I agreed that something cannot pop into existence out of a prior nothing, There is no reason to think that is what happened with regards to the universe under Atheism. Rather, We would have a point that existed some finite time ago (the initial universal state) that had no cause; that does not mean it came from nothing, There is no reason to think it "came from" at all. It simply existed in the past without an outside cause and expanded. There is nothing irrational about that once so ever, And we are left with absolutely no compelling reason to accept P1. Also, The formula that no examples of X confirm X is never the case is demonstrably false. This logic does nothing to make P1 anymore reasonable. Since there are no good reasons to think the initial state of the universe some finite time ago needed a cause, Then P1 of the argument is an utter failure. There is no rational reasons for accepting this premise. Thus, The KCA fails.