Kalam Cosmological Argument for God is Invalid

2. producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom. 3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative. I used the terms invalid/valid in the colloquial sense, where valid is synonymous with sound (definition 1 of Con's dictionary reference). Rebuttal 1-------------Con's Conclusion: "At best Pro might demonstrate that the Kalam argument is unsound, however, this does NOT mean that it is invalid. "Response: I hope the above clarification is enough for Con to accept my usage of valid/invalid, so in that sense Con also agrees that the argument is unsound, in which case we can end the debate here…Rebuttal 2-------------If Con doesn't accept the above clarification, then I would like to address his definitions of valid/invalid argument. I would like to turn everybody's attention to the definition provided by Con: "a deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. "At the very bottom of that article there is a section about the author and it states:"The author of this article is anonymous. The IEP is actively seeking an author who will write a replacement article. "[2]This indicates that the article may be replaced with a "more accurate" article; however, I'm not dismissing my opponent's reference, but I'm merely raising the point that a supplement to that definition may be necessary, so I submit the following supplement:"Remember that an argument is valid if it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false at the same time. To show that an argument is invalid, we must give an example of a possibility in which the premises could be true and the conclusion false at the same time. "[3]To that end, I have provided an example where the premises are true, but the conclusion is false, my opponent has conceded that point, therefore KCA is invalid in both the colloquial sense of the word and the definition above. Rebuttal 3-------------Con: "They are perfectly valid inasmuch as they are so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. "Response: Given that an argument can be demonstrated to be invalid by offering an example of a possibility in which the premises could be true and the conclusion false, then I have done so in the first round, to which Con has agreed by stating: "I'll begin by admitting that Pro's argument is indeed valid. "The KCA argument is indeed invalid because the premises can be jointly asserted (which is exactly what Clifton does) and the conclusion is denied without contradiction, see Rebuttal 4 below for more details. Rebuttal 4-------------Furthermore, Con summarizes KCA as: (1) What begins to exist has a cause. (2) The universe began to exist. (3) Therefore, the universe has a causeI have specifically referenced Craig's full argument which includes 2 more points: (4) If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent (5) Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. If the KCA argument was to merely stop at point 3, then Con would be correct in his claim that there is an antinomy, but the KCA argument makes two more points which are in fact proven impossible by Clifton's argument. Specifically the latter two parts of the argument state that God (the Creator) exists and God (the Creator) cause the Universe to exist, and since Con agrees that my argument is valid, then the conclusion of KCA cannot be true. Conclusion-------------I have demonstrated that KCA's conclusion cannot be true; therefore, by the very definition(s) provided by Con, I have demonstrated that KCA is in fact invalid. Please vote Pro! [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] . http://faculty.uncfsu.edu...