The Cosmological Argument is Sound

The first two premises of the cosmological argument I find no fault with, depending on the definition of the word 'cause'. I find fault with the third - that the universe had an uncaused cause. The first premise asserts that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. However, the uncaused cause of the universe is either something which began to exist or always existed - if the latter, then why is the second premise assumed to be true? Premise one I find no fault in, but I do find fault in the reasoning of my opponent. Science is not predicated on the idea that there are explanations for why things happen, but is instead the study of reality.[1][2] As such, it follows that it is entirely scientific to suggest that things can begin to exist without reason, if the evidence points to such a conclusion. The first idea, that the universe could have come from nothing, is not refuted by ex nihilo nihil fit, as it is a philosophical principle[3], and not a scientific one. Philosophy is not an authority on matters of science, as it is merely conjecture. If there is a state of absolute nothingness, then there is nothing in existence. Some people believe that time did not exist prior to the big bang. I do not understand this. Time is an abstract concept. Even if there is nothing, there is time passing. It is not measurable, but it is passing, as it is merely a concept. Some people believe the same of the laws of physics - that, prior to things existing, there were no laws. I find this as false as the notion that time did not exist before the big bang. The laws of physics simply how things work. Gravity does not exist when there is nothing, but the fact that things with mass have gravitational forces does. As such, the laws of physics existed before 'things' did. Under those laws, we can observe that nothingness is inherently unstable.[4] Therefore, it is entirely possible for something to come from nothing, my opponent's argument against it is false.Next, my opponent claims that an eternal universe would require an absolute beginning. This is not the case. Prior to 'stuff' existing, an infinite amount of time would have passed, as before this nothing, there was this identical nothing, and before this identical nothing, there was that nothing, and so forth, so it cannot be said to have begun to exist, as there is no difference between its existence and nonexistence.However, if you take 'universe' to mean everything from the point at which things exist, then you can say that it had a beginning. Prior to which, there is no reason to think that the laws of physics would not have worked, as explained above.Next, my opponent brings up Zeno's paradox. Diogenes the Critic is said to have refuted Zeno's argument by simply standing up and walking, demonstrating that it was indeed possible to reach a destination.[5] So, although Zeno's paradox is intriguing from both a mathematical and philosophical standpoint, we know that he was wrong. Therefore, we can indeed have an infinite number of events occuring before the present moment, just as we can move half of the way to a destination, then half of the remaining distance, and so forth, and still reach the destination.Now, my opponent asserts that the cause of the universe is most plausibly god, with god defined as "the timeless (therefore beginningless), immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing." There are many problems with that mere definition of god.The first is that it is not the definition used by nearly all of the world, and is therefore akin to defining communists as people who enjoy their toast without any butter or other things added to it. That is simply not the definition.The second problem is the idea of god being without a beginning. The first premise of the argument is that everything which begins to exist has a cause, and the second is that the universe began to exist. This is acceptable, but when viewed in context of the definition of god, is not. There is no reason given for the universe to need to have begun to exist other than the first premise, however, it is clearly stated that god never began to exist. So, why could the universe not have always existed?The third major problem is being omnipotent. Mainly that omnipotence is impossible. An omnipotent being would be able to create something it could not destroy. However, if it could not destroy something, then it could not be omnipotent. So if it could destroy that, then it would be unable to create something which it could not destroy.Next, the quote from Apeiron. I simply fail to see how his assertion proves that the universe had a personal cause, or how a personal cause is different from a complete scientific explanation. A complete scientific explanation would include why the water was boiling and why it was in the situation in which it could boil. The explanation of the situation would include is 'personal cause.'In conclusion, the cosmological argument has many, many flaws, as does my opponent's definition of god. References 1: http://dictionary.reference.com...2: http://en.wikipedia.org...3: http://en.wikipedia.org...4: A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss. 5: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes#Proposed_solutions