The Christian Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo is not supported by the KCA.

This debate will be religious in nature, but, religion need not play a hand in discerning the validity of my side. In fact, one need not abandon their Christian beliefs in order to accept my view as valid, as I am not attempting to disprove anyone’s God. I am merely presenting an argument against a doctrine of Christianity that was introduced by man, and in fact is NOT written anywhere in the actual Bible. So, all that being said, let us begin with The Kalam Cosmological Argument: P1: All things that begin to exist have a cause P2: The Universe began to exist C1: The Universe had a cause Premise 1- All things that begin to exist have a cause Let’s take a close look at premise one before attempting to reject it or accept it. We must make sure that have a firm understanding of the terms used in this premise. The things I have emphasized in italics can later prove to be a deceiving if not squared away from the start. So, what does it mean to “Begin to exist”? In philosophical circles, discussions about causation are often understood by using Aristotle’s Forms of Causation. Let’s nail down the ones that will be useful: 1) The Material Cause: The “stuff” out of which something is made. (For a table, we can say WOOD is the Material Cause) 2) The Formal Cause: The “shape” being given to the material, and the form it takes that we recognize as a new thing. (in this case, a TABLE is the formal cause, the shape being given to the wood, is that of a TABLE) 3) The Efficient Cause: The Causal Agent that affects the effect. That which brings about a new form from the material it is acting upon. ( Following with this example, you have probably already inferred that The Carpenter is The Efficient Cause here) 4) The Final Cause: The purpose of the new thing that has “come into being”. (This could be any number of things. If it was built to have meals served upon it and people gathered around to eat off it, it would be a dinner table. If the intent was to have business executives gather around in suits, seated around it as a place to hold meetings and discussions, it would be a boardroom table, etc.) For the sake of this debate, we need only concern ourselves with 1, 2, and 3. We are discussing the origin of the universe, and to posit any knowledge of number 4, would be a separate debate entirely. Let’s look at some examples: Is a table ever made without pre-existing table-making “stuff”? Is a car ever made without pre-existing car-making “stuff”? Is a human made, without pre-existing baby-making “stuff”? The answer to all of these, is quite obviously, NO. The fact is, everything that “comes into being” does so, from pre-existing “stuff”, and is caused by some form of causal agent. This is the premise will we agree to, as it is the only form of causation that surrounds us. We cannot anymore entertain a different form of gravity that is unaffected by mass. To posit such a claim is to take on an extremely heavy burden of proof, one that has not been successfully shifted in the slightest. To say that I began to exist, is not suggesting that there was NOTHING, and then I appeared. Something existed before me, and from it, I came into being, as is the case with all causation. None of this supports a concept of things being caused into being from NOTHING-ness. I will explain more about this in the next round, for now, I will await answers to the next question being begged by anyone wishing to defend attack the topic of this debate. Premise 2- The Universe began to exist... Why should "...from nothing "be an acceptable way to end this sentence, and how does the KCA support your claim? My opponent must successfully answer this question to earn sway of your opinion. My conention is that he cannot. Thank you.