The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

4 Rounds 8,000 Character limit 72 Hours to respond 3 Month voting period NO VIDEO LINKS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BURDEN OF PROOF Both sides of this debate have a burden to carry I as the CON will argue that the kalam cosmological argument should be rejected. My opponent as the PRO will argue that the kalam cosmological argument should be accepted. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROBLEMS ? If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXPECTATIONS It is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Round 4 Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background/introduction of the debate topic "A second type of cosmological argument, contending for a first or beginning cause of the universe, has a venerable history, especially in the Islamic tradition. Although it had numerous defenders through the centuries, it received new life in the recent voluminous writings of William Lane Craig. Craig formulates the kalï¿½ï¿½m cosmological argument this way (in Craig and Smith 1993, chap. 1): 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. 4) Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent) This argument has been the subject of much recent debate, some of which we will summarize here" [1] Countering that the universe/time began to exist --- What does it mean too say that something began to exist ? --- In order for something to "begin" to exist, there must be a past in which the thing did not exist. Why is this the case ? Cause if something exists, yet going back into the past there was no point in which it did not exist, that would make it eternal, and as such did not "begin" to exist. For instance you began to exist, cause going back into the past there was a time when you did not exist. --- The universe including time began to exist ? --- If the universe began to exist, this means that time began to exist. But time beginning to exist is self refuting. In order for time to begin to exist, there must be a past where time did not exist. But you can't have a "past" unless time exists in the first place. Seeing that time existing before time exists is impossible, that means there has never been a past where time did not exist. This means time has always existed and as such has not began to exist. Consider this argument....... 1) For something to begin to exist, there must be a point in the past where it did not exist 2) IF time began to exist, there was a point in the past where time did not exist 2b) Time would have to not exist in the past. Not existing in the past can only happen where time exists. Premise 2) is self refuting, there fore time did not begin to exist. 3) Time is part of the universe 4) Therefore part of the universe did not begin to exist 5) Therefore the claim that the universe began to exist is false I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...