The KCA is ridiculous.

Sorry I took a while. And I thank my opponent for his arguments and I will now attempt to rebut them. 1: First of all I would like to quote my opponent."The cause of the universe must also be personal; for how else could a(n) impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? As William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." I argue that this is an assertion that first of all is very poorly explained, there are no definitions of "personal" or what temporal effect he meant, and second of all is very poorly supported. To quote a man who is possibly one of the most debunked physicists in history is not enough to prove an assertion. Thirdly, of course something non personal can give rise to something temporal! Would you argue that when an apple falls and give temporary motion to the ground it hits (in the form of a vibration) that that drop was personal?I.E it was caused by a direct intervention of a being? "Lastly, this cause must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, because time, space and matter began at the "Big Bang" (or at the moment the universe came into being).In summary, this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, and unimaginable powerful." Firstly, not true. Secondly, this in no way proves your point, energy for example is all of the above. You stated above that whatever caused the universe must be "unimaginable powerful" an this assertion is both untrue and unsupported. Alexander Fleming first brought penicillin into the universe. Is he "unimaginable powerful"? To quote Lawrence M. Krauss " The staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that suggest that not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing."[1] 2: I agree that it is nonsensical, but only in this debate. Of course we can find out what was before the big bang. Energy can never be created or destroyed. Which further links in with my point that God cannot simply be exempt from the laws of physics because you want him to be. NOTHING can create energy. So if the KCA would hold, then there cannot be a physical God. I will go into more depth with this later. 3: I'll make a point out of this one. Like I have explained before,you simply cannot create a law (the KCA) and then claim that it does not apply to the main subject of that law. It's absurd. If you're rule doesn't work on certain things, it is not a rule. It's a bit like saying that all apples are red. But then claiming that this only applies to red apples. What you are doing is picking and choosing what you want from your argument and thus making it redundant. If it does not apply to everything, than the claim cannot be made that it applies to anything. Now I can see that my opponent will find a rule that does not apply to everything but applies to some things. Like the fact that we know antibiotics work on certain bacteria, not all of them though. However we have observed and tested antibiotics working. I am talking about though is theories and laws that are supposed to apply to everything, like thermodynamics and the KCA. Because we cannot directly observe the results of the KCA, unless you can claim that it applies to EVERYTHING, you cannot claim that it is a law that works for everything. This is pretty much common sense. Therefore if you claim that the KCA does not apply to God, you are stating that we cannot possibly know it to apply to the universe, as it is supposed the apply to everything. "1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; 2.The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore: 3.The universe has a cause of its existence." [2] Unless it applies to God, it is not valid, and if it does not, God is not something (that is if this argument is a valid one). I don't believe I need provide any further points for this area. 4: "Pro said: "Either God is eternal and exists in a non physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful, or God does not exist." What Pro is doing here is assuming that God, if he is eternal and exists in a non-physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful. However, no evidences(?) whatsoever to support this absurd claim is given. Accordingly, this claim must for now be dismissed." Not it must not. My previous argument may be rebutted in the following way: "God does not exist in a physical universe and therefore our physical laws cannot be applied to him." Ok, fair enough, you can argue that God does not exist in our universe, but then, how could he have cause it? If God is not physical, he can't interact with anything physical. This is because anything physical has substance. Everything in our universe does, even energy. So everything in our universe can react with one another. But it's presume there is something non physical. It does not have any substance. It is not able to interact with anything physical because it is not. It's harder to explain it any further than that, and I think my opponent can see my point. If it is not physical it does not exist in the conventional sense, and so it isn't governed by the laws of physics. Dreams exist but are not physical. They are more of an idea. Or so to speak. They cannot have any interaction with the universe (so far as we know). So in conclusion, you have two options if the KCA is correct. God exists but did not create the universe, or God does not exist. And of course the option that the KCA is not correct. 5: It contradicts what you have just said in the following way. "Everything has a beginning and thus a cause. But God has always existed." See? Hypocrisy! 6: I have already explained everything in this subject. I put it to you that the KCA proves a non physical or non existing God, neither of which can create a universe, not and does not prove an existing one. Either that or it is not valid. I turn it over to CON, and don't y'all forget to vote now! SOURCES [1]: The book "A universe from nothing: why is there something rather than nothing?" Sorry couldn't find that quote online! [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...