The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Hi, I'm Elusivetruth and this is my first debate here. I look forward to stimulating debate and discussion. I may not immediately take this in the direction you may expect but stay with me. By the way... my approach is kinda philosophical so I won't be citing many sources, at least not yet. Anyway, good luck. 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. 5. Therefore, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. If one accepts all the above as true then the Creator caused the universe whether directly or indirectly. By this I mean to say that there may be a chain of causation extending between the Creator and the beginning of the Universe. The Creator could have worked from a far higher level than we can comprehend. We barely understand the workings or origins of the Universe. We are not at a point where we can conclusively claim that the phenomena we observe in the world around us are not the results of design. Who is to say that the phenomena we observe is not the result of "programming" not unlike but far greater than the programming in a complex computer game? The phenomena observed and explained by science can seemingly be described or explained by theories and laws[1]. While some claim it is our own perception and interpretation of the world around us, there seems to be order and organization to the world and the universe. Scientific theories and facts, suggest that phenomena in the universe around us are not as random as they may at times seem. Many phenomena are and have been considered random until science figured out the how and what of them. As we continue to advance in our understanding of the world, phenomena which didn't make sense, turn out to have reasons which are perfectly logical. Is this logic simply of our own making, or is there an inherent order in the world around us? Consider for a moment that we still have much to learn about the universe, and that it is highly likely that we would understand and explain a great deal more over the centuries and millenia to come. Anything that can be observed can likely be explained by science with enough time and the right technology. As the body of scientific knowledge grows, laws become more apparent, connecting various phenomena. If you were to for a moment imagine that we understood the universe entirely, would it be strange to find out that it operates according to a few changeless Principles existing since the beginning of the universe? With that in mind is it so impossible or hard to believe that a Creator existing outside of the Universe and not bound by it's Principles could have been the one to design and cause the Principles? Keep in mind the nature of the world as we know it... from quantum physics all the way up to the cosmic level. How does one explain an ocean of energy randomly forming itself into the universe that we can scientifically observe and explain by chance? Is it not logical and perfectly possible that Principles have guided the formation and operation of the universe? Such Principles being designed by a Creator is perfectly possible and logical even. If our entire universe is essentially a vast ocean of energy, then the Principles which transformed it into the variety of phenomena we observe and experience would have to be caused. An Ocean of energy does not simply organize itself and start producing a universe and phenomena that we happen to make sense of. I suggest that the Creator could have caused our Universe, whether directly or otherwise, by designing and creating Principles that formed, guide, and operate our Universe. Is the KCA therefore sound? I suggest that it is. I say nothing about probabilities or other sound possibilities but I don't see why the KCA is not a sound argument. I'm looking forward to your rebuttal, and I'm curious where you will take things. It's a bit strange arguing from somebody else's premises but it's a fun challenge. Cheers! 1. http://www.livescience.com...