Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it has a cause.

I find his arguments most interesting, if not always to the point and relevant. He brings up some interesting points so let me begin by addressing some of them. Scientific assumptions can be wrong as wellAs Con so kindly pointed out, arguments based on what we know and what we assume can be wrong because though evidence suggests that our assumptions are true, they may nevertheless be false. This is a sword that cuts both ways. In the case of the argument I'm making, it may well be that the universe did indeed begin to exist(or have a beginning), despite assumptions, assertions, or evidence to the contrary. Our assumptions and knowledge, have no bearing on the reality of the matter. In other words, we may continue building a scientific picture of a universe with no beginning, but be wrong the entire time because of a single wrong assumption. The whole picture science is building, of a universe that has always existed by sheer virtue of its current existence, might not be true. But then again. .. as we will see below, perhaps science isn't really making such an argument after all. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The first premise does indeed presume that there is a class of things that "begin to exist". I'm not sure however if Con is truly understanding the intended meaning of said phrase. For the sake of avoiding semantics let me clear up the meaning of the first premise. "Everything the begins to exist" basically refers to anything that hasn't existed forever. Or in other words it refers to anything that has a beginning or starting point. With that in mind the premise was intended to mean the following: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God is an argument attempting to prove the existence of God through logic. Considering that context, the meaning of the first premise becomes clear. The first premise sets the framework for later premises of the KCA argument which state that God has always existed, making Him exempt from the first premise. Basically the "class of things" which "began to exist" is meant to refer to everything in the universe as well as the universe itself. This is made clear in the next two premises that state that the universe began to exist and that it therefore has a cause. I would like to minimize and avoid semantic discussions and as such the above should be clear enough to both Con and any readers. If not I can try to clarify it further, but that really shouldn't be necessary. I ask that Con focus on debating the content of the resolution rather than the wording of the resolution. LanguageLanguage is a tangent to the topic at hand and could easily be a whole debate of its own. This debate is not about the nature of language, and it isn't about how best to define or word the first three premises of the KCA argument either. The debate is about the ideas and concepts behind the premises. I ask that Con focus on disproving or undermining the premises, and not on misinterpreting them. Likewise I ask the readers and voters to kindly overlook semantic arguments that have no direct bearing on the issue at hand. Having said all that, Con has in the midst of his semantic arguments, made some points worth addressing. AttributionThe first premise is only an attribution error, if the universe did not begin to exist. As I said earlier, begins to exist refers to two things. 1. The universe has a beginning. 2. The universe has not existed forever. Put the two together and you get "The universe began to exist. " Simple. To put it simply, science suggests that the universe began with the Big Bang approximately 13.77 Billion years ago. Science can't say this one moment. .. and then turn around five second later and say. .. oh, wait the universe didn't actually begin at all. How can you even give the universe an age if it has always existed? So yeah, it would seem that science ultimately supports that idea that the universe has a beginning. They just don't like the idea that it may suggest even a remote possibility of a first cause or God. CreationCreation can indeed be interpreted as an organization or transformation of one thing into another. The Big Bang can easily be considered such a transformation can it not? None of the premises suggest that the universe was caused from nothing, merely that it did have a cause. There is no conflict or contradiction between creation being a transformation, and the universe being the result of a transformation. One does not exclude the other and they can, on the contrary, quite easily follow each other. SemanticsUnfortunately it would seem that Con has gone through a lot of trouble to create a whole argument around semantics. As I have stated earlier, I have no intention of getting into such an argument. I have outlined what was meant by the first premise, and unless Con has not understood the intended meaning I will leave it at that. I will only address any actual arguments pertaining to the content of premises rather than semantic arguments about how the premises have been phrased. I don't have to time to get into semantics. .. if this was a much longer debate I would honestly consider it and maybe even be interested in including semantics in the debate. .. but we only have a few rounds so let us please stick to the point. I will readily admit that the phrasing of the premises are a bit unusual but their intended meaning is not of the day to day variety. As I have shown earlier, given the context, the meaning is actually quite clear. Otherwise I don't feel that the phrasing of the argument has any bearing on whether or not the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause. That is ultimately the issue at hand. If Con admits that the universe has cause as a property. .. upon what basis does he argue that it was not itself caused? All Beginnings are causedYes, while everything that begins must have a cause this is limited to everything that begins. Nothing does not begin, and is irrelevant anyway. And something infinite, or something which has always existed does not have a beginning. The first premises are meant to lead up to the point that there is essentially something which is infinite and has no beginning. This debate does not get into that however, and merely focuses on whether or not the universe began. And whether it therefore has a cause. I hope to see more relevant arguments by Con. And hopefully less semantic arguments. I nevertheless thank Con for the entertaining read, and maybe we can debate semantics separately sometime. I woudn't mind. .. we just don't have the time or space for it here.