Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

Ave.I don't think that my argument relates to the fallacy of composition. My problem was not with the logical formulation of the argument. My problem was with reason three that Dr. Craig presented, which is that you can assert something to be metaphysically true by intuition. I used an example of something else intuition would justify, the parallel postulate. Yet, there is no reason to consider the parallel postulate to be true in all cases. Therefore, there are exceptions to the parallel postulate, just like there can be exceptions to the casual principle, even though all of our intution backs it up. My whole objection was that the casual principle doesn't have to be something that's always true, but it can be true for some things, like our experience...same as the parallel postulate.I think Pro misundertood what I was getting at. I wasn't trying to make an argument for an eternal universe based off energy existing forever. I was just trying to show that he still had his work cut out for him, which was to demonstrate that energy not arising ex nihilo proves the casual principle. I just argued that his reasoning was incomplete, and at best it leaves us with the conclusion that energy doesn't begin to exist. I don't actually argue for that conclusion, I'm just stating that it's the only reasonable one to make from the facts Pro gave us.My argument didn't depend on the Copenhagen interpretation. If energy comes from nothing, then energy comes nothing, and it doesn't matter if energy came from nothing based on probability or indeterminism. You can say that the energy comes from nothing based on probability (non-Copenhagen) or that energy comes from nothing based on indeterminism (Copenhagen), and it wouldn't have any implications on the fact that it came from nothing.Let's talk about nothing. In his first round, Pro argued that energy doesn't come from nothing based off the conservation of energy. This is a claim about physics. He is claiming that, in physics, energy does not come from nothing because of conservation. Therefore, any point I bring up about nothing is going to relate to the definition of nothing in physics, not a philosophical definition. Does it satisfy philosophical ideas of nothing? Definitely not. Does that matter? No, because it's a claim about physics, and only physics terminology applies.I think Pro, who argues that my 'every state is caused by every other state' is circular, confuses deductive argument and circular arguments. I am making the conclusion that there is no initial state based on the fact that every state of the universe is caused by another one. This is just deductive reasoning. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to ask why every state of the universe is caused by another one, but accusing the argument of being circular doesn't seem to be valid.Remember the diagram I gave in my last round. Or imagine the present moment. The present moment was caused by the past moment, which caused by a past moment, which is caused by a past moment, all the way back to T=1. I already showed in the last round, using Hawking, that T=0 is an impossible state, so it logically follows that time never goes to 0, and you always have a decimal number. There is no smallest decimal number, so there is an infinite number of states, therefore there is no initial state. The premises could be stated like this.P1: Every state of the universe is caused by another state.P2: If every state of the universe if caused by another state, then an initial state is logically impossible.C: An intial state is logically impossible.C2: There can be no first cause.The only thing I need to do is prove P1. After that, everything else follows logically.I think it's important to define what exactly we mean by 'universe'. Dr. Craig defines the universe as the whole of all material reality. Dr. Vilenkin, however, defines it as the entire spacetime region. One has to wonder: how can you assert that the 'universe' as defined by Craig began to exist, and then prove it using Vilenkin, who has an entirely different definition of that word than Craig? The mind boggles. [1]Reiterating what I said in the last round, I was quoting Hawking to explain the fact that there is no need for a singularity where T=0. That's relevant to my argument, because if there is a state where T=0, then there is indeed an initial state. I wasn't trying to accuse Pro of misquoting Hawking or taking his work out of context. I just thought it was interesting that a quote from his references supports what I am saying.I think the rope analogy is a false analogy. It doesn't parallel the theory I'm putting forward. Yes, you can divide the rope into infinite parts, and it will still be finite. Let's consider a four foot rope where you have R=1, R=2, R=3, and R=4. You can divide these into smaller decimals ad infinitum, but the rope is still finite. Why is this? It's because there is a logical state of affairs where R=0, making the rope finite. This is why the analogy fails. If there is no singularity, then there is no state where T=0, so it can't be finite. That is the difference between time and the rope.Vale.Referenceshttp://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...