The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Forgive the typo, Pro. I don't tend to put much effort into spell checking a non-verbose intro. I can't deny that the argument would be logically sound if it is proven. Unfortunately for pro, however, although the antecident is quite sound, the conclusions are a mess. 1. Everything That Begins to Exist Has a Cause This opening is riddled with shady, ambiguous language. What do you mean by something, and what do you mean by nothing? This poor use of language is epitomized when pro refers to "coming into being," as he uses several examples of this that have nothing to do wuth one another. The wooden boat analogy makes no sense. The title of boat is just given to the structure of the wooden materials. The "Potentiality" of the wood to become the boat was certainly there. Nothing is being created: it's simply being re-arranged. Next, you're saying that nothing means "without a cause? That's not at all like your conclusion The carpenter is a terrible analogy for pro's idea of God. The carpenter isn't "creating" anything (By "creating" I mean "Causing something to come into existence.") He's re-arranging and attaching the pieces of wood. He's building something, but nothing material is really gained from the endeavor since everything within the resultant boat already existed. Pro, what have we ever observed beginning to exist? We've observed things being changed (e.g. a matter/antimatter annihilation event, where the particles are converted to energy) but nothing has ever seemed to "begin to exist" in the way you use the phrase. Even if we did observe things beginning to exist with causes, the conclusion that everything that begins to exist has a cause would still be unproven because we haven't observed everything that began to exist, nor have we observed anything that logically implies that conclusion with certainty. This argument fails before its even finished. 2. The universe began to exist. The universe as we know it certainly began to exist. The things in it, (e.g. all the energy and matter) however, "predate" the universe. "Before" the big bang (And I use these time sensitive words lightly, as time didn't exist as we know it without the big bang) all physical particles existed in a hyper-dense state, or singularity. What's more is that the phonomena that we observe as space and time exists as a product of these particles interacting. As such, the big bang was merely the event that allowed the universe as we know it to form. It is a gross over-simplification to say that everything was created at the big bang. NOTHING was created; that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Things have been converted en masse since the big bang, but creation as pro describes is impossible. 3. The Universe Has a Cause The universe being the way it is has a cause. The beginning of the universe's current state has a cause. The vanilla universe has no cause because the only thing that can be caused are events. I'm willing to mark this hiccup down as another example of pro using poorly worded thoughts rather than a flaw in his logic. So yes, pro, the universe was made into its current state, and that fact has a cause. 4. If The Universe has a Cause, then there exists a transcendent, personal creator. What? How is this conclusion self-evident from the things previously shown to be true? First of all, you assert whatever created the universe, supposedly by causing the big bang, that it must exist beyond space and time? As I said before, time and space are phenomena that result from the interaction of energy and/or matter. It's not a coincidence that the particles that make up energy and matter (hereby colloquially and whimsically referred to as "stuff") were in a densely packed state before time and space started to expand. The stuff of the universe is what caused the phenomena we call spacetime. They were not, as pro suggests, the conscious efforts of some eldritch metaphysical entity. I'm not an expert on big bang cosmology, so please forgive these simplistic explanations of the most complicated field of study ever. Pro then tries to make it look like his imaginary formless, timeless entity is the only logical explanation by equivocation and blatant half-truths. For starters, numbers sets and properties are things that humans use to describe what they observe around them, not some kind of transcendent universal constant. His idea of an unembodied mind being the solution is absurd on two fronts: for one, the only casual abilities of a naked intelligence would exist within itself, and although we can't disprove that we live in the imagination land of the anti-hero of a 4,000 year old desert fairy story, such an assertion is non-falsifiable, and therefore logic has nothing for the theory outside of a polite "Maybe," an irritated sigh,, and a futile effort to avoid the theory at parties for fear that logic will be accosted because it didn't return the theory's calls. Lastly, the unembodied mind isn't the only remaining alternative; time and space could be an illusory nomenon not bound to the laws of logic; time and space could have been created as the result of a larger universe collapsing; time and space could be the body of an invisible pink space panda that exists within an infinite amount of larger space pandas. All of these explanations have as much merit as pro's, which is to say zero. To conclude: If pro wishes to demonstrate that a transcendent and personal creator must exist with this argument, he must reconcile Kalam's conclusion, "I dunno, therefore gawd," by showing that there is a clear implication of a transcendent and personal creator before the argumemt's conclusion may be proven. Otherwise, the eldritch sky daddy will always be seen by logic as that weird guy who looked and smelled like he hadn't left his house in months that tried to give her his phone number that one time.