Kalam argument is sound

B theoryCraig and B theoryCon cites William Lane Craig as "proof" that the Kalam is incompatible with B theory. But so what? That does not mean anything. This debate is not about what other people believe. It is ultimately about who has better evidence. Citing a philosopher's bare assertion rather than the evidence he uses commits the appeal to authority fallacy. [2] However, Craig in recent years has changed his mind and he agrees with a questioner that even if B theory is true then Kalam based on the beginning of the universe is not a salient issue. [3]"So the universe did not begin to exist IN THAT SENSE"Craig believes that the universe did not begin to exist in the sense of coming into being. (3:42). However, recall that by began to exist, I mean having a finite past.B theory's ontologyCon asserts that there is no passage of time under B theory. But that is a mere assertion. Sean Carroll explains here [4] how the arrow of time is a real and objective phenomonen within physics and uses it to explain entropy so ultimately even if Con's mischaracterization of B theory is correct then B theory is false. Luckily, B theory does not hold such. Most B-theorists hold that motion overtime is an effect only to the viewer however B theory also hold that a tenseless, relational account of the passage of time that is based on tenseless, temporal relations is real. [5] B theory also hold that there is an objective arrow and passage of time. [5]Ruler analogyCon provides a ruler analogy to explain B theory which is accurate however, it is self-defeating. In Con's analogy the ruler represents the sequence of events. However, what is in dispute is not whether or not all events/inches are equally real but rather whether this sequence of events extends in the earlier direction forever or whether it is finite in the earlier direction. If the ruler is finite in the earlier direction or has a finite number of inches which I have proved in my opening round that Con has not responded to yet then the universe began to exist and thus the second premise of the Kalam is confirmed.GR and SRCon claims that I made an argument in the footnotes. That's false. I linked to an experiment where the speed of light was calculated in the same vacuum over and over again by recording the time it took the photons to traverse the distance between point A and point B and every single trial was through the same vacuum. The experiment conlcudes that the speed of light varies in a vacuum by microns given the same time holding all other factors constant. [6] Since a key assumption of GR theory is that light is constant and we have shown experimentally that the speed of light is not constant and varies even though the exact same conditions are held constant then con's characterization of GR and its support for B theory is experimentally wrong. Here is the experiment. [6]I find it rather hypocritical of Con to criticize for linking a source that lays why the speed of light is not constant yet that is exactly what he does in the second round by asserting that GR is confirmed by "countless experiementation" and then linking a youtube video.Relativity's conclusionCon claims that what relativity "exactly says" is that "The events are merely described as events that elapse before or after relative, not to any observer, but relative to other meat loafs or other events in the same sequence." but that is as wrong as anything can be. Relativity's conclusion is that space and time are related, interdependent and are the exact same thing called spacetime, in that you can not have space without time and time without space. [7]Fallacy of compositionCon's objection here was nothing but a strawman. A fallacy of composition is claiming that a whole has a property because the parts have that property so claiming that the ocean (whole) is naked to the invisible eye because the atoms that compose the ocean are invisible to the naked eye is an example of the fallacy of composition.My reasons for believing the first premise are these:1- A priori definition of nothing 2- Reductio Ad absurdum 3- Principle of sufficient reasoning Which one of the above three reasons says "the universe is made up of parts that have a cause of their beginning so the universe itself has a cause of its beginning". Which one of the above reasons says that? Con's objection is to an argument I did not make.PSR"As far as PSR, I also agree, and the causeless REASON for the universe is simple - the universe exists tenselessly in spacetime"This would only be true if the universe never began to exist but I have proved the second premise to be true thus there must be a cause for the Beginning of the universe. If the universe began to exist, then it must have a cause or reason for its beginning by the principle of sufficient reasoning. "Nothing" is not a cause since you would bearguing that "the universe's beginning had a cause and it is no thing and no cause" and that is as wrong as saying that nobody is somebody or that nowhere is somewhere.Reductio ad absurdum"As far as Reductio ad absurdum, Pro is again assuming an A-Theory of time, namely nothing actually "pops" into existence, everything just exists tenselessly."That's false. If the negation of the first premise is true then we should observe it. Namely we should observe objects have a beginning/a finite past and be uncaused. But we do not observe bikes, tables or frogs begin to exist uncaused. By "begin to exist" I mean to exist in a finite number of events in the earlier than direction."because if causation DOES apply outside the universe to both natural and supernatural, then Pro must provide an explanation for what caused their supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial mind."The first premise argues that whatever begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist and the sufficient reason for his existence is the necessity of his own nature same way numbers exist, nobody caused the number 3 to exist, it can't not exist, it exists out of necessity of its own nature. By contrast, the universe began to exist so it is contingent. Taxicab fallacy would be when a rule applies to an entity but you make a special pleading for this single entity to be exempt from the rule even though the rule applies to it however this rule does not even apply to God since God does not begin to exist. The universe can not be "timeless" because of relativity that Con was defending earlier. Space and time are connected. They are literally the exact same fabric. [7] So ultimately taking out time dimension would be to also take out the space dimension because space and time are literally the exact same thing - spacetime fabric. [7] So ultimately if you have no space and no time then there can not be any matter since matter by definition must have volume and volume is the amount of space that an object takes up and if there is no space, there is no space to contain the volume hence no matter either."But all these examples assume an A-Theory of time."That's patently false. Alexander Pruss came up with most of these examples including the grim reaper paradox. [8] He is a B-theorist [9] so these arguments obviously do not assume an A-theory.Material thingsCon notes that I can not invoke the supernatural, however, recall that this discussion is about induction and we have plenty of inductive experience with the supernatural. [10] The reason we can not argue that things could begin to exist without a beginning is because it is disconfirmed by our inductive reaosning. If a book begins to exist, it has an author. If a baby begins to exist, it has parents. If a building begin to exist, it has builders.Not itself within timeI do not admit that the scenario is probably not possible or that the scenario is false but rather I use this illustration to show that timeless causality is possible. I do not believe that reality is timeless neither did I claim that the illustration is representative of reality. I believe that time does exist. However, the illustration of the man timelessly causing footprints is to show that timeless causation is real. " if a cause lasts forever then we will never see the effect."That's one of the reasons why I give that the cause must be personal. Recall the human on the shore example timelessly causing the footprints. Since the man has a personal mind, he can decide to then create spacetime and then go and create a temporal effect like let's say a sandcastle. Similarily if God existed timelessly chronologically prior to the universe then he can easily decide to create time and space and the universe since he is a personal mind capable of doing decisions same way a man timelssly sitting down can decide to produce a temporal effect like standing up. However, by contrast if the cause is not a personal mind then it should create an eternal universe once all the sufficient requisites are there. For example, if the temperature (cause) is 100 degrees celsius from an eternity-past then the water should be boiling (effect) from an eternity-past.MindsCon asks me to prove a mind not physically embodied. Some Jellyfish [11] have a mind that is capable of making choices and responding to stimuli without actually having any place say a brain nor a nervous system to embody this mind. The mind definetly uses the physical body of the jellyfish yet it is not contained anywhere in the jellyfish. " All a mind is is a sequence of synapses, chemicals, hormones, and organic matter interacting to form emotions and perceptions and instincts."False. Hydranencephaly [12] is a condition where there is no brain, no hormones and no synapses yet the people still live and have concious decision-making capacities and thinking capacities yet still no brain, no hormones, no synapses. So again, Con's bare unevidenced assertion is false.Time defintion Began to exist works with B theory if it means that the object has existed for a finite number of equally real events in the earlier than direction.