The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Unfortunately, He did not grasp the point I was trying to make. I agree that the past is finite, And that the universe had a beginning. There is no reason to discuss P2 of the KCA because I agree with it. My point that my opponent did not understand was that rejecting P1 doesn"t commit me to the position that the universe came from nothing. That would assume that at first, Nothing existed. I"m claiming that one can just posit that at first, The initial state of the universe existed a finite time ago. Basically, I agree that if if there existed absolutely nothing, Something will not just begin. I only deny the idea that there ever was absolutely nothing. If we rewind reality we get to a point at the past in which the universe began, But we cannot go further to a point where we can be like "and here, Nothing exists! ". So we have two scenarios: 1. Originally, Nothing exists, Then the initial state of the universe pops into existence 2. Originally, The initial state of the universe existed Scenario 2 agrees with a finite past, But disagrees that the universe came from nothing. It simply didn"t "come from" at all! It merely existed a finite time ago and expanded according to The Big Bang Because one could accept that the universe couldn"t have just popped into existence from nothing, But still reject P1 of the KCA, Then my opponents first two points in favour of the KCA fail. Even if something cannot come from nothing, That does not mean there is any good reason to accept P1 of the KCA. My opponent has simply left us with no good reasons to believe that whatever begins to exist had a cause. Also, I did not construct a syllogism, I posted 5 principles that are always verified by experience and science. They all disconfirm Theism. Theism says that God created material things, But we only observe material things coming from other material things. Theism says God crested the universe out of nothing, But science and experience tell us that things cannot just come from nothing. If God caused the universe and time then he is a timeless cause, But the principle that all causes are in time disconfirms Theism (also that all minds have temporal duration). The principle that all minds are embodied contradicts Theism because God is supposedly a disembodied mind. The point is not that these principles are correct, Just that they are always verified by common experience and science. However they contradict the idea that God exists caused the universe! So clearly the Theist would reject all 5. However, If they reject principles that are always verified by common experience and science, Then that means generalizations of such a kind (like generalizations about beginnings always having a cause) are not very powerful. Just because all examples agree with a principle doesn"t make the principle correct (or even most likely correct). Therefore, Common experience and science not contradicting P1 doesn"t support it being true, Because common experience and science support lots lots of principles the KCA advocate would find false. In conclusion, One can agree that out of nothing, Nothing comes. . . That still does not give us a good reason to believe the universe beginning without a cause is problematic. Also, Just because science and experience do not contradict a principle, Does not make the principle true. If this were the case, The Theist would have a handful of problems. We are simply left with no good reason to believe that whatever begins to exist has a cause.