The existance of God (philsophical debate)

Hello Pro! The argument you present in round 1 is essentially the Kalam cosmological argument: P1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: The universe had a cause. The argument is clearly valid, so the question is whether or not it is sound. You justify your premises, stating that from nothing, nothing comes, and that an infinite past is impossible. I disagree with the latter. With infinite time on our hands, all that is possible must necessarily occur. Else, it is not possible. Since we are living in the current state of the universe, the current state of the universe must be possible. (I define "the universe" as "all that exists") Thus, if we hold the view that the past is infinite, we are committed to the view that the current state of the universe has also occurred in the past. The same goes for the future. In this circular view of time, all that is possible will reoccur an infinite amount of times. While making your argument, you seem to assume that time is linear, stating that the current state of the universe could not have been reached, if the past indeed was infinite. In the above paragraph, I presented a model of time, where the problem of "reaching the current state", is no longer an issue. Reaching the current state must necessarily happen, in the circular view of time. If you hold the view that time is linear, you are forced to conclude that it both has a beginning and an end. If the future was infinite, while the past was not, then we would yet again get into this reoccurring loop of all possible states of all that exists; thus making time circular, not linear. You are also forced to believe that the linear time-span is ended before any possible state of the universe has reoccurred; e.g. you cannot complete the loop. I suppose you can believe that the universe had a beginning, but still holding the view that time is circular. However, this just adds an extra assumption, which is not necessary, since the assumption is not needed, as it solves no problem with the current model. Empirically, the model where time is circular, with no beginning, and no end, seems more plausible. We have never observed something begin to exist. And we have never observed something end to exist either. All we have ever observed are rearrangements of that which already exists. The material that my computer is made of, did not begin to exist when it was produced. The material was simply put together in a different way than it was before. It is not clear to me how you can have a causal relationship between the existent and the non-existent. Such a relationship seems to be what is needed, if it were possible for anything to begin to or end to exist. I mean, how exactly do you cause nothing to do anything? After all, it is nothing. It's not like you can pin-point it, and make it do stuff. I don't see how a transition from nothing to something is possible. Your answer to this dilemma might be that the entity that you claim is causing nothing to begin existing, is omnipotent. However, can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even itself can't lift it? No matter what way you answer this question, we are forced to conclude that there are some things even an omnipotent being can't do; namely that which gives logical contradictions. This leads to my next questions: Is causing nothing to become something logically contradictory? Is creatio ex nihilo in the category of tasks that even omnipotent being are unable to perform? To me it seems that the very definition of nothing is such that, if it was possible to "cause nothing to do something", then that would not be nothing; thus making it a logical contradiction. I have now argued against P2, making a case for the possibility that the universe in fact did not have a beginning. Further I have raised concerns about the truth of both P1 and P2, stating some serious problems with the entire idea of anything beginning to exist. It seems to me that you have work to do, in order to save your argument. I would also like you to clarify what you mean by the following sentence: "the cause for for the universe is uncaused and exists outside of time and is a personel cause". What do you mean by "a personal cause"? I just want to clarify, because even if it were the case that your argument was sound, you can't just be adding characteristics to the entity you proved to exist. The only characteristics you can subscribe to the entity are those that are necessary for the being to be able to perform the task of making the universe begin to exist. If this argument were sound, you would perhaps have a solid case for deism. However, you would certainly need more than the Kalam cosmological argument to make a case for Christianity (or any of the other major religions). I realize that this debate is about the existence of god, and nothing more, so we don't have to get into debating the specific religions, unless we want to. Cheers!