Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

That’s what I was getting at, how they’re similar. I don’t see how Craig’s response would be off topic. I wasn’t saying a spherical Earth was an axiom, I was just using it as an example as something that is now axiom-like with hard evidence. What is and isn’t irrational to argue is somewhat a matter of opinion. Craig isn’t using the same type of intuition. The flat Earth was inductive and the causal principle is deductive. Spinoza did give a good argument to think it applies to a whole. By axiom 7 “From nothing, nothing comes.” Something can’t have nothing as a cause, this is true in part and whole. I know you can accept the Kalam and reject God, however that is why I included justifications for the attributes of God. I wasn't trying to show energy began to exist, I was saying since it can't be created, it must have a supernatural cause. Your main argument was about the states of the Universe, however I was talking about ex nihlio, nihil fit in the context of causality, not about your states argument. Robert Koons said the uncaused vacuum interpretation was an indeterministic cause. He also said indeterminism wasn't necessarily an uncaused cause. He didn't just say it's not a true nothing. The states stopping and no states existing before 15 billion years, I think is just a minor technicality. I was thinking about going backwards; my argument works either way. If the states don't exist at 15 billion years, then it's not infinite. I said infinite was going on forever, beginning at 15 billion years isn't infinite. I stated in round 2, that breaking up the states infinitely isn't really an infinite. The problem I find is, it's just us humans are breaking down the measurement of time into infinitely small parts. This doesn't mean time itself is infinite. I could break up the measurement between one end of rope to the other end infinitely, but does this mean I have an infinite supply of rope? No, the measurements themselves are human conventions based on physical things, they're not physical things themselves. One can infinitely break up the time measurements of L1(lunch start) and L2 (lunch finish), however this doesn't mean an infinite series of events between L1 and L2 has been crossed. You could measure it to the quark, but there is still a finite series of events. Which brings us to the lunch analogy. First, you offered it as a response to my infinite regress argument, then you were acting like it had to do with the states argument, which is how we got the confusion. Let me review my objections to your argument P1: Every state of the universe is caused by another state. I wouldn't dispute this. P2: If every state of the universe is caused by another state, then an initial state is logically impossible. The problem here is, it must answer the infinite regress argument. Stephen Hawking did say there was a time where T=0. If this initial state must be caused, it could be by God. God could be the state, outside the Universe. Even if I grant both premises, your argument still doesn't refute the Kalam. How can there be an infinite number of states if the universe began to exist? Your answer here would refute your argument. Because states beginning at 15 billion years, wouldn't be infinite. Doesn't the big bang singularity show that there was an initial state? Irrelevant, Hawking still said there existed a time where T=0. In conclusion, I believe Con never answered the infinite regress argument. I also thank Con for this debate. I probably could've done better, but it was still a fun debate. Voters, remember “The debate should result in a tie, with neither side winning. The audience can still give a RFD on the comments or in a vote, but please do not assign any points to either side.” Thanks again.