The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Hopefully, we can tie up more loose ends and bring some more ideas to the table which were left out in our last exchange. First, are there any reasons to believe that the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't logically valid? Russell's ParadoxThe Kalam Cosmological Argument seems to be invalid. Here is an argument with the same type of logic:P1: Any apple that I gather at any time can produce cider P2: I gathered an orange today P3: Therefore, the orange I gathered today can produce cider The above argument is invalid because “oranges” do not belong to the set of “apples”, oranges are simply not apples. If we look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument one can easily spot that the “universe” does not belong to the set of “things”, the universe cannot be any “thing”. To explain this further, advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument adhere to the traditional definition of “universe”: universe n (Astronomy) Astronomy the aggregate of all existing matter, energy, and space [1] u·ni·verse Noun: 1. All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos [2] “The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists. .. " [3] These classical definitions are critical to the theistic arguments, because these definitions imply that no matter, energy or space can exist without the universe existing. Now the classical definition infers that the universe is the sum, whole, aggregate, or collection of all items or “things”. Bertrand Russell, who was one the largest contributors to logic in the last century explained that a set can be a member or subset of another set, and it can be considered a subset of itself, but a set should not be considered a member of itself because this leads to contradiction. Now, a set is a collection of items, thus the universe is the set of all “things”. “I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother--that's a different logical sphere. " – Bertrand Russell [4] Advocates of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are basically trying to put the universe (the set) in the same logical sphere as “things”, however a set cannot be a member of itself, because if the set was “thing”, then the set couldn't’ be the set which contained all “things”, because the set itself would be a “thing”. This is called Russell’s Paradox. So, lets assume that the first premise and the second premise of the KCA are true for the sake of argument. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, because the universe cannot be considering any “thing” (just like an orange cannot be considered an apple). Thus the Kalam Cosmological Argument ends up being a non-sequitur, and isn’t even logically valid (let alone sound). Also, “who"ever refers to a person/ being, “where"ever refers to a place/ location and “what" ever refers to a thing/ object. So changing the argument from “everything that begins to exist…” to “whatever begins to exist…” does not solve the issue at hand. The universe is not a "thing". Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause My opponent here seems to simply bare assert that this principle is self-evident (this is a logical fallacy called proof by assertion), and it was also is inferring that this is a fundamental principle which applies to all of which we would consider reality. However, there is absolutely no reason to accept this causal principle as fact. To say it is "uncontroversial" seems to be contradictory to much that I have researched as well. Regardless, what does it mean to be self-evident? "In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof" [5]However I am a rational being who rejects this principle, and for good reason. There are philosophers who adhere to this position as well:"Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. " - Quentin Persifor Smith. American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. [6]Since my opponent has not even presented an argument supporting the first premise, there is absolutely no reason to interpret this principle as true. Until my opponent meets his burden of proof on this issue, it seems my response to the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been adequate. Premise 2: The Universe Began To ExistMy opponent refers to the Second Law of Thermodynamics to illustrate that the universe is running out of usable energy. However, this is under the assumption of the A-Theory of time (which I will get into later on). Also, this neglects the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which doesn't fair too kindly in favor of a creator (or a creative "cause"). The only example we have of any violations of the conservation of energy, seem to do so without any real cause of an event at any point in time:"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. " - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [7] This of course, undermines the first premise of the argument at hand event further. Also, with regards to the argument from an infinite regress of past events, a finite-past does not automatically equate to a beginning. Stephen Hawking calculated that time can behave like another direction of space, and even though there is a finite past there may not be an actual boundary. This would mean that the universe didn't have an actual beginning (this is consistent with Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe Theorem), and thus had no cause. The main criticism to this is Hawking's use of "imaginary numbers", however there is no reason to think they are not useful in explaining reality. "[Imaginary numbers] turn out to be invaluable in many applications of mathematics to engineering, physics, and almost every other science. Moreover, these numbers obey all the rules which you already know for ‘real’ numbers” (John Conway and Richard Guy: The Book of Numbers, pg. 212). Something From NothingWell one could talk about a mathematical geometry governed by the laws of physics with no space-time or energy being nothing, because laws are no-"thing". However absolute nothingness (what a rock dreams about) seems logically incoherent. However, if theists accept that abstract things like 'facts' are real, then absolute nothingness is impossible. If absolutely nothingness exists, then the fact that absolutely nothing exists, exists. Thus, it is not relevant to the conversation anyway. ConclusionMy opponent failed to meet his burden, and I met mine in undermining/ falsifying his claims. Sources[1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] . http://www.infidels.org...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://www.secularhumanism.org...[7] . http://atheism.about.com...