The KCA is ridiculous.

First of all, the grammar in my opponents last two posts has been painful to read. I quoted "unimaginable powerful" because it doesn't make any sense and because it was said more than once. This was re-quoted by the opposition and used as an argument! As if they did not realise it makes no sense! Secondly I am getting annoyed with the claim that there is an apparent lack of evidence for my arguments. First of all, I am not a doctor of physics. How do you expect me to explain the substance of energy in great detail! ? (this isn't an excuse, I did provide sufficient evidence for my points). Secondly, I have explained in great detail all of my points. I have provided sufficient evidence for all of them. And thirdly. .. I am getting really sick of the WLC quotes. The man has a website dedicated to debunking him. [1] Quoting a massively disputed physicist and providing a very vague quote is not evidence for a point! This point of yours (which seems to be your entire argument) has absolutely zero evidence provided for it and actually makes no sense. The whole quote is a massive assertion. I can't even begin to describe how invalid this point is because you have never once explained any of the quote! You have simply taken it to be fact without justified reasons. But I'll try and debunk it. My apple analogy was used because of how poorly explained this point was. But more to the point, this entire proposition is based on an assertion, that something that can create the universe must be all powerful. Simply not true. It is even possible that humans can create a universe, sometime in the future. Don't ask me to explain it, the evidence here is that it is possible. We know that energy existed before the big bang. Energy can NEVER be created. EVER. By any means whatsoever. Or destroyed. If we can synthesize pure form energy from elementary particles, which I can't exactly explain, but is perfectly possible, it is possible that that energy would create a universe. Don't take this one too seriously. My point is that you have given no evidence for your claim that too create the universe you have to be all powerful, and that it is "possible" that a universe could be artificially. Granted unlikely, but the fact that it could be done signifies that you do not have to be "unimaginable powerful" to create a universe. So how is energy Timeless, space less and immaterial? It cannot have a beginning or an end, it is more of potential than a material. While it does have substance, as it can interact, it is space less as it can never be interacted with. It is immaterial in the same way. But in the words of Richard Feynman "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. "[2] This may seem like I am granting the opponent his point on the assertion that a cause of the universe must be timeless, space less and immaterial. However I am not, I am merely showing that I was correct when I said that energy is all of the above. As I said before, you just took his word to be fact. One thing that really annoys me is when theists take logic to be law in debates. They have multiple arguments for God, based on logic, and then refuse to accept that just because something is logical, that does not make it correct. Logically, a universe ruled by a benevolent God would not have Rape or Murder. To further explain my argument about the ability to apply the KCA to everything including God, I will give more detail on my reasoning (even though I have already provided more than enough). I said that you cannot make the claim that the KCA applies to anything if you cannot prove that it applies to anything. I clarified that when I said this I meant in terms of theories that are supposed to apply to everything. I. E I say that nothing can be truly transparent. Unless I can prove this applies to everything, I cannot claim that it applies to anything, as it is supposed to apply to EVERYTHING. If I do, I am in fact making a rule which only applies to certain groups of things. This isn't a law. So the KCA must be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to it's existence. A. K. A everything. Since the argument implies that God has existed for ever, he exists. (If it is accurate) But because this argument applies to God now, or does not apply to anything, unless you can prove that God did not have a beginning, the argument is redundant. This is because the argument suggests that God caused everything as everything had a beginning, but nothing caused God because he is eternal. So where is your proof that God is eternal. This is perhaps the least supported assumption I have ever come across in a debate. The whole element of this proving God revolves around a statement which is totally unsupported. Throughout that has been my point. The KCA has no evidence to support it and is more so evidence against god. In this debate I had the burden of proof to show that. I have done so. However my opponent has not provided any evidence as to how the argument is either supported, or just a valid argument. He would have been arguing both if he had argued either. However this entire debate, he has, in a way argued for me. How? Well every single one of the arguments from CON was unsupported. As he was arguing that the Kalam Cosmological Argument was correct/valid, we can conclude that the KCA it's self is unsupported. If it was not, con would have been able to come up with some supported evidence. However, as it is now the last round, he can only extend his previous arguments, rebut and summarize. No new information. The physical God point has been a major one in this debate. I (pro) have argued that if the KCA holds, God cannot have created the universe. My evidence was that as the entire KCA is based upon the fact that the universe has a cause, but not God. Therefore God does not exist in our universe. I will now give a definition of Universe: "The totality of existence"[3] So nothing can exist outside of our universe (yes I am well aware of the multiverse theory, so let's say, A universe instead). It is the totality of matter, energy, space and phenomena. Therefore, if God exists outside of a universe, he cannot possibly be physical. E. G of a substance capable of interacting with anything in our universe. So he did not create the universe. This point kind of argues it's self. Nothing outside of a universe is anything. So how, pray tell, can something that is, as you said, "immaterial" react with something that is material? However the opposition has argued the contrary in such a fashion: That God can actually interact with our universe, and that not enough evidence has been given as to why he cannot. He said "How would this, however, damage the KCA in the slightest or show that it is ridiculous? " Obviously I believe that the prop version of this argument. As already explained, this damages the KCA hugely by proving that something immaterial and not in our universe can't intervene with our universe. So God could not have created the universe if the KCA is correct. So therefore, if it is correct, it is incorrect, which proves my point that it is invalid and ridiculous. In summary, I believe that the KCA is a ridiculous argument because it is based on a horribly unsupported assertion, it argues for the proposition's side in that it proves God cannot be physical and it follows that one could not have created a physical universe, and that it cannot be true, because it's logic is so far off that it contradicts it's self. Thanks for listening and I urge you to vote prop. Sources: [1] = . http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com... [2] = Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964) Volume I, 4-1 / (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) [3] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... Exactly 8000 characters