The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

I thank con for the enjoyable debate and the voters for taking their time to read it. Science and the uncaused Con continues to assert that the atom decays uncaused. His hypothetical conversation I'm afraid, does not represent my side. He states, "what's uncaused is that one atom will decay earlier and one will decay later". This however, does not disprove what I stated. In the case of 3H1, the atom has too many neutrons which causes it to have double the amount of initial positive charge. Therefore we do know why they decay when they do decay. And as stated in the previous round, cons analogy of the bus could be applied to this argument. Even if we didn't see a cause that doesn't conclude no cause exists. Now, my opponent may state that theories prove that there is no cause, but I'm afraid that's a little far-fetched. Proving that no cause exists is a difficult task, simply because you're trying to prove the non-existence of something that requires ultimate knowledge. You need to know all the facts before you can conclude no cause exists. And when I say all the facts, I mean that in the sense to which it is impossible. It's similar to proving the non-existence of God. You would need to have knowledge about the whole universe before you could prove that God does not exist, hence why the burden of proof rests on the theist. In the same way, no one has the knowledge to prove that there is no cause. I am not saying this proves there is a cause (I did that earlier). I am just pointing out that cons assertions that theory proves there is no cause are flawed. The material problem/fallacy of composition Note, that I've condensed two arguments for basis of similarity and to save space. The problem with my opponents argument is that all we have to do is affirm the principle of causation in order to fulfil the statement that the universe was caused into existence. Therefore, it does not serve to say creatio ex-materia is different then creatio ex-nihilo so the first does not apply to the latter. The causal principle does not state only material causes exist. It applies to all causes. We use certain aspects of existence to formulate conclusions on others. Thus, once we can view it as a sound principle, we also can affirm the fact that the universe came about by a cause. Furthermore, I find cons statements to be quite problematic in other ways. My opponent does not refute P.2 thus it is conceded for this debate that all matter that makes up the universe had a beginning and thus came about ex-nihilo. Take the bellow picture. . http://pages.csam.montclair.edu... This diagram demonstrates how cause and effect works. One cause eventually leads to another, or multiple, causes and so on. Now would it be plausible to assume that the first event has no cause? That would be completely inconsistent and contradictory. How could we demonstrate a chain of events and say all follow the same rule except for this first one? ? It would be fallacious. We would have to assume that the laws of logic apply to all of them. Otherwse we are begging the question. Where is the justification in saying the first event is exempt from following th laws of the others? My opponents objections about laws outside of the universe do not stand. Simple mathematical principles are what you would call necessary laws. Certain concepts do not need to exist, but others do. Mathematical principles are ones which do. The belief that 1+2=3 must exist in any possible world simply because of impossibility to the contrary. How could there be a world in which 1+2=4 for example? It's an impossibility. Moreover, according to my opponents statements, logic would have to be considered as relative rather than objective. . http://plato.stanford.edu... Rationalism, Causality and Plato Now then, the observer would not be justified in concluding that the hand stopped the bus for reasons that it is counter-logical. If he was an empiricist he would take that view, however if he took the more Kantian approach he should not. It is not at all reasonable to view the cause of the bus is the hand stopping for two reasons. Firstly, it is a very hasty conclusion. You don't just observe things that are seemingly linked and deduce that they are linked by cause. Secondly he would have no reason to believe that it is even possible for a hand to cause a bus to stop. To justifiably hold a belief it obviously must be one in which holds no impluasible premises. My opponent completely misrepresents my attack on rationalism. I never once claimed geometry was gained from observation. I don't know why my opponent states that. The point I was demonstrating was that rationalism is a self-refuting philosophy. It supposedly denies our sensory abilities but at the same time, completely relies on them! We can only use reasoning if trust our logical intuition. There are many facts that are only derived from intuition. Arthur Schpenhauer developed four very basic ones as shown below. A subject is equal to the sum of its predicates, or a = a. No predicate can be simultaneously attributed and denied to a subject, or a ≠ ~a. Of every two contradictorily opposite predicates one must belong to every subject. Truth is the reference of a judgment to something outside it as its sufficient reason or ground. . http://editthis.info... Therefore rationalism is completely flawed as it's basis rests on that which it denies. And you can't say, well rationalism deems senses as flawed except for our logical sense. Where do we justify the "except"? My opponent also suggests that we do not know how the universe works just as he observer does not know how a bus works. While this is an interesting point, it again fails. I demonstrated it in the last round. The knowledge of the observer is not comparable to our knowledge of the laws of the universe. The observers knowledge is very primitive. Ours is very advanced. We do have a reasonably good understanding of the universe to the extent that we can reasonably debate many issues without appealing to ignorance. The causal nature of existence is one. Hume and Empiricism My opponent starts off by making completely unfounded assumptions on the character of God. He states that God must possess all the omni characteristics but this just begs the question. There are many theists who don't view God as omnipotent, omniscient etc. .. I'm one of them. I see nothing to suggest that God must be any of these characteristics. The KCA doesn't set out to prove a certain type of God. Just a conscious being who could be considered as God. I'm not sure I fully gasp my opponent purpose of the horse analogy. Nevertheless I will speculate. I would take the deterministic view that one horse will inevitably win the race. Each horse possesses a blend of hundreds or thousands of small characteristics. These characteristics are a big factor on how the race will play but there are also many other factors that play in. For each occurrence there is a long chain of inevitable events. In similar style to Laplace's demon, we can posit that all actions lead up to an inevitable outcome. Therefore, there is an inevitable winner, or no winner, of the race. We just don't have the absolute knowledge to know which one. As my opponents responses both fail in their attempt to uphold this contention, I do not feel he has adequately responded to my objections. Kant and Cosmology My opponent claims he will make a new argument since it is "only round 3". However, as I am not using the fourth round to make an argument, this is essentially the exact same thing as making a new argument in the last round. This is contrary to basic debate conduct and I am not required to respond to it. I was going to, but I've already exceeded the character limit.