The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

Thank you for the debate. My opponent's first argument is correct, however, he misappropriates the proper use of the term state. 2) Somethings non existence must be the state before its existence DEFINTIONS: State- the way something is with respect to its main attributes (wordnet.princeton) ARGUMENT: If something does not exist, it does not have a state. The state of something is the status of an existing being, entity, object, etc. The state can not exist if it does not. In this, his third arguments is flawed that they have temporal relations, because one can not exist or have an acknowledgable state until it does exist. Therefore, non-existance can not have a state-of-being, for there is not "being". I would furthermore like to clear up the issue with time. Time is not something that exists, time is a calcuable predictablity by man. There is no set time for the universe. If the universe did not exist, then there was no time. My opponent can not say that Earth took seven days to make (as said in Genisis), because no clear God or text has been established and it did not define then how many Earth hours it was. I agree that there was no "before" the universe. It is proven fact that the universe is expanding. What lies beyond that point? Nothing! The universe is constantly being created. If you go back a millenia, the universe would not be nearly as big. We can assume then that the universe, going back far enough, contracts to the point of nonexistence. There is theory that the universe was a plasmitic substance before "creation". Things would have remained the same if not for evolution of the plasma, inciting the multi-changing universe. The plasma could be considered as clay for God, for if God was the first thing, he had to create this plasma. Who's to say God isn't a plasma being who is not a physical entity, but an omnipotent being and that we humanize him to a point to cope with what reality may be beyond our minds? After all, Aristotle couldn't have believed nutty squirrels were once cells, no more than specks. For spirits, it is believed by some scientist that this is what we return to when we die resulting in ectoplasmic images of actual people (ghosts). I will say that the universe AS WE KNOW IT did not exist. Nutty, angry squirrels didn't exist past a cell at one point, though that was their existence. Everything must have a beginning, even according to Newton's laws. We must look at the world we know to provide proof for what we can not readily prove; we must attack it bit by bit. Newton's Laws of Cause and Effect prove and support my theory that there is a cause to the Universe. If something doesn't exist it can not have a temporal relation. Everything must have a point to where it can not be taken apart and divided, such as atoms. Logically, it is possible to divide something, but there's always a starting point, an initial building block. For the universe, God was that initial block. You must have to have something in existence to build with before you can build, but there's always something to create it. Most people focus on the blocks, but the person who controls the creation is the builder. The matter it builds with is irrelevant to the initial cause, which is God. "Something will not exist unless there is a reason for it's existence. This rests on the premise that...we can account for everything in it being here for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole requires a further reason for existence, and that reason is God." I would again like to stress that the non-existence is not a state. My non-existent child does not have a state- I must create it. http://skyserver.sdss.org... http://skyserver.sdss.org...