The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

Premise 1 This premise can be supported a priori and a posteriori. Ex Nihilo Nihil FitThe principle of ex nihilo nihil fit (from nothing, nothing comes) can be backed up without need for any additional observation or confirmation. What is being referred to as "nothing", is non-being. Why is it impossible for being to come from non-being? Well, for this to have happened, there must have existed at least the potential for being. It is self-evident that without the potential for something to happen, it cannot happen because without potential, there is no possibility (potentiality and possibility are synonymous). However, if there would "be" this potential, then what we are discussing is not non-being. This potential for being would serve as the seed with regards to this being, and thus would be its cause. Therefore, something cannot come from nothing (being cannot come from non-being), and something would have to come from nothing in order for the first premise to be false. In sum, if something 2 comes from something 1, then something 1 is a reason something 2 exists, and thus would be its cause. There is little hope in a logical path one could take to prove this premise false. Always Verified and Never Falsified When a cup begins to exist, it has a cause. When a human begins to exist, this human has a cause. Basically, the first premise seems to be an intuitively true notion that is always verified no matter what the case. When things begin to exist, they always have a cause. Now, do we ever see tigers and baseballs popping into existence, uncaused? Of course not, this would be absurd. This means, based on observation, we have a posteriori support to back up the first premise as well as a priori support.Premise 2 The Big Bang theory seems to provide compelling support to some people with regards to the universe having a beginning. However, we do not know exactly what was going on before Plank time (10-43 seconds) [1], so there were very plausible scenarios in which the universe could have not have had an actual beginning at one point. These theories are not plausible anymore however, this is because a paper by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin demonstrated a definite finite past of the universe independently of any questions hanging regarding Plank time [2]. "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" - Alexander Vilenkin [3]Based on modern cosmology, one can only conclude that the second premise is true. Premise 3The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises, and the preceding premise are true. Thus, there is no escaping the conclusion: The universe has a cause. Conflating Transition with Creation Con seems to believe that Dr. William Lane Craig is confusing transition with creation. The problem with this argument, is that creation, and transition in this sense, both infer the beginning of an existence. Whether something is "created" (creatio ex nihilo) or there is a "transition" (creatio ex material), the point is that both of these situations involve something beginning to exist. If the universe began to exist from nothing, and by God, then it belongs to the set of "things which begin to exist". If a paper plane begins to exist from paper, and by a human, then it still belongs to the set of "things which begin to exist". Since both "creation" and "transition" in this sense infer the beginning of existence, then acting like there is some sort of confusion, is false. Aristotle and CausationOne problem I see with this argument off the bat, lies within the The Final Cause:- “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools. However, when two tectonic plates rub together and cause a mountain to begin to exists, there is no "sake of which the thing is done" (it is simply the a bi product Earth's movements). Basically, there are things which begin to exist without a final cause at all, and are just an accident or a bi-product of something else. If my opponent states that all four causes must be in place for something to be considered caused, then he resorts to having to claim that things like mountains are not caused. "Note that Aristotle does not say that all four explanatory factors are involved in the explanation of each and every instance of natural change. Rather, he says that an adequate explanation of natural change may involve a reference to all of them." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [4]Basically, all four causes are not necessary in order for something to be considered a cause. These four causes are just what you will most likely find within nature. Thus, a beginning of something could lack a material cause, and still be considered caused. Atomic DecayMy opponent states that atomic decay lacks an efficient cause, however he did not sufficiently support this with anything. He presented a quote without even mentioning who is he quoting. Also, if an atom is decaying, then what exactly is beginning to exist? Regardless, I already proved that something can be caused even without having all four Aristotelian causes in place.Infinity My opponent seems to not know the difference between a potential infinity and an actual infinity. You may have 1x10-23 seconds, and then be able reduce it further to 1x10-24 seconds and so an and so forth (ad infinitum). However, a complete infinite set of time with a specified unit in mind is impossible, even if a potentially infinite is possible. Regardless, if there was an infinite past, we never would have reached this point in time. If the lifespan of the universe is infinite, then there has not been, and never will be, enough time elapsed yet for us to reach this particular point in time we are in (it would take an infinite amount of time).Who designed the Designer?This argument fails for rather obvious reasons. To be the cause of the universe, is to also be the cause of time (the laws of physics along with time itself collapse at the initial singularity). The cause of time would have to be timeless, thus atemporally eternal. The cause would have to be atemporally eternal because time would not be a factor with regards to the existence of this cause. This means, that a beginning is not a factor with regards to this cause. If a beginning is not a factor, then asking what caused this timeless entity makes no sense. It would be atemporally eternal. The reason the universe needs a cause is because it began to exist, but since the cause of time must be timeless (thus, without beginning), it needs no cause. Conclusion The first premise must be true a priori and a posteri. Being cannot some from non-being. Also, this principle is always verified and never falsified. The second premise must be true we well, because it is logically necessary (an infinite number of past events is impossible), and it is concluded scientifically. Now, Con based the bulk of this argument on the idea that all four causes of Aristotle need to be in place, in order for something to be considered caused. This is nonsense, as I pointed out, because many things begin to exist without a proper final cause, that are clearly caused. Also, Aristotle never claimed that all four things have to be in place in order for something to be considered caused. This was just his theory. Also, God need not be designed, because he is atemporal. The universe is temporal, thus, requires a cause. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [3] Alexander Vilenkin: Many Worlds in One (P. 176) [4] http://plato.stanford.edu...