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

Well done con. I can tell I am in for a challenging debate. Con has chosen not to refute premises two and three meaning that he essentially concedes that the universe had a beginning and that if everything that begins to exist has a cause, the cause of the universe must be God. But as he has pointed out, all he needs to do is refute one premise for the conclusion to fail. Therefore it seems this debate will rest solely on whether everything that begins to exist has a cause of existence. I also agree with him on terms of soundness and validity. The simple logic of the KCA proves that it is valid. If p is true than q is true p is true Therefore q is true Whether it is sound will rest on the validity of each premise. P.1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Con presents an array of mostly philosophical arguments to refute this premise. "Craig, Aristotle, and material causes" The crux of cons argument here is that we can observe things coming about uncaused in this universe which is contrary to what KCA advocates would state. I would first like to note that my opponent makes some scientific claims without providing any source. Science necessarily requires backing or else of course, it's useless. Con may makes claims that atomic decay occurs without a cause but none of those claims bare any weight if he does not provide both reasoning and backing. He has failed to use either. Furthermore it makes it harder to respond if I don't have any source to look to when seeking the basis of my opponents objections. I will though address these statements. Contrary to my opponents assertions, radioactive decay does have a cause; various possible causes as a matter of fact. Let's take the case of tritium, 3H1. If an atom has too many neutrons to be stable it cannot simply kick out one neutron but instead the neutron turns into a proton. 3H1then becomes 3He2. As Hydrogen has one proton and helium two you'd end up with double the amount of initial positive charge. Going back this can be explained by when 3H metamorphoses into helium 3 it gains a negative which cancels out one proton. This process is known as the beta decay which can be formulated in equation 3H1 => 3He2 + 0e-1. [1] http://askville.amazon.com... As Craig says, quantum phenomena does not refute the KCA. Some necessary conditions are involved. It is not completely devoid of causal conditions. Considering the beginning of the universe however there are no prior necessary causal conditions. [2] Craig, in Craig and Smith, 1993, 146; see Koons, 203 "The material problem" I am a little confused on my opponents argument here. Sometimes it seems he is saying ex-nihilo is not a plausible view on the universes origins but he has already decided not to refute premise two which would say otherwise. I am still not quite sure what my opponent means by the material problem, or what exactly the problem is. Now he does bring up that premise one is supported by an ex-materia understanding while the origins of the universe is ex-nihilo. However, as I have already stated there is no reason to reject the causal nature of existence ex-nihilo if it is evident with ex-materia. Once we prove the principle of causality we do not need to observe creatio ex-nihilo because it would already be founded that existence is causal. My opponent also says "Anything made by nothing has no material cause", but no one is asserting that nothing is creating something. Maybe it would makes sense if he said anything made from nothing has no material case, but I have already address that. "Rationalism, Causality and Plato" Immanuel Kant rejected both rationalism and empiricism on the fact that both reasoning and experience are used to garner facts. Reasoning without experience is flawed as is experience without reasoning. Rationalism and empiricism must be synthesized. In fact,often times those who claim to be rationalists have to base their reasoning somewhat off observation. Latter on my opponent himself indirectly demonstrates why such a view on logic is more superior. In his analogy of the bus, the observer would be clearly flawed in thinking that the hand caused the bus to stop. If we were to take an empiricist view we would however have to conclude that. That is of course wrong thus we must use both observation and reasoning. Through observation we can foresee certain possible facts. By reasoning we can conclude whether these facts are true. Using only reasoning would be flawed because observation is the tool to knowledge. [3] Kant; a very short introduction Furthermore rationalism can be demonstrated as flawed by the very fact that all reasoning rests on sensory appeals. All logic is based upon our logical intuition which itself is very much categorically along the lines of sense perception! Centuries ago the Greeks realized the foundation of geometry must be based off of intuitivily derived facts; that two points always makes a straight line for example. If we were to ignore our sense peceptions we would also have to ignore our logical intuition. But logical intuition is the whole basis of rational thought. Furthermore, I would posit that causality could be supported from a rationalist leaning view. Pure reasoning supports the principle as we have always viewed facts and occurrences to have an explanation and have also sought to find these explanations. When presented with a fact it is basic human reasoning to conclude there must be an explanation to the fact. "Hume and empiricism" My opponent here presents us with his analogy with the bus. The problem with the analogy is that it is not directly applicable to the KCA. Even if the observer was wrong in concluding what the cause was for the bus stopping, there still was a cause. It does not serve to say we are often wrong about what the cause is of certain events for a cause still exists which is all that matters. The analogy can in fact be used to defend my case. What would be fallacious to assume would be to say that the bus stopping did not have a cause. The observer might think there is no possible way a hand can cause a large object to come to a stop. He might say there is no foreseeable cause other than that which is an impossibility thus there is no cause. This however would be clearly fallacious. There is a cause for the bus stopping. Even when we see things happening that appear uncaused that in no way means no cause exists. Thus my opponent own argument could be applied to his claims that uncaused events do occur. Furthermore the knowledge of the observer is not anywhere near comparable to our current knowledge of the world. It is safe to say we are increasingly advanced in terms of understanding, logic and knowledge. No longer do we see lightning and conclude it's from God. We have learned to critically analyze things until we have a plausible understanding. Therefore we do not see the bus stopping at the same time the mans hand was raised and conclude it was the hand that stopped it. Now we would search more into the actual meaning instead of coming to such hasty conclusions. My opponent goes on to present the fallacy of composition. However I fail to see how this refutes the argument. In fact, I would say it could support it. If everything inside the universe is governed by cause and effect it would follow, rather than be fallacious, to assume that however the universe came into being was the same. The laws that exist inside this universe are not solely dependent on the existence of the universe or whether you are in the universe or not. For example, if we were to take my opponents reasoning, one plus one would only equal two if the universe existed. That would be to assume relative rather than objective logic. One plus one always equals two. It is not dependent on our universe, just as the principle of the causation, we can extrapolate, is not dependant on the universe.