The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

Contention #1"If God is the sole member of NBE, then the two have the same referent - they pick out the same thing. But, it does not mean that the two statements have the same meaning; because if you knew one statement to be true, then you would know the other to be as well - in which case, the argument would be circular like Pro is suggesting. However, this is not the case. So the argument is neither circular, nor begging the question."What exactly do you mean? As far as I can tell, you've simply asserted it's not circular, without explaining why/how. I'm apologize for my being dense, but your response doesn't really make clear your contention.------------------------------------------------Contention #2"Pro asked for another member of NBE, and I gave him one. But, he does not think that they can be used. I would like to stress that they can, but I will give another example anyway. As Quentin Smith states, a Timeless Space also does not begin to exist."You didn't give me one. You gave me concepts that 'exist', but this is a MASSIVELY different usage of the term exists. Numbers and shapes simply don't exist in the same way that "things" (matter) exists - which precisely demonstrates the equivocation fallacy you're making. You also mention "timeless space" as being in the category of NBE. The distinction that you fail to make here is that you're arguing that god exists and is in the category of things that didn't 'begin to exist' (NBE). I don't know where you get the idea that a timeless space exists. If you don't think a timeless space exists AND didn't begin to exist, then your point is simply invalid. Once again, you are left with NBE == God, which is a circular argument in the an unstated major premise in P1.------------------------------------------------Contention #3 "If I was committing the fallacy of composition, the argument would go like this:1) Everything within the universe that began to exist has a cause2) the universe began to exist3) Therefore the universe has a causeThis would blatantly be a fallacy of composition. But, I gave reasons to believe that EVERYTHING that begins to exist, has a cause. Not just the things inside of the universe."The Kalam is broken into 4 pieces, which you outline in your opening remarks. The ONLY difference between what you just admitted was fallacious above and the first three premises to the kalam is as follows:Original P1:"Everything that begins to exist has a cause"Admittedly Fallacious P1:"Everything within the universe that began to exist has a cause" The only things that we claim "begin to exist" and that "have a cause" are things in the universe. That is ALL WE KNOW anything about. If you conclude in the 3rd premise that "therefore the universe has a cause" that directly implies that you didn't include the universe itself in the first premise, and if you talk about "everything" and remove the universe itself from that list, you are left only with everything within the universe. Which means you are basically using "everything" and "everything within the universe" interchangeably, which means these two premises above are essentially identical. You MUST explain why this is false, or you have simply admitted that your argument is fallacious. In order to do demonstrate that the two premises above are not the same, you would have to show me something that "begins to exist" that isn't 'within the universe' and isn't the universe itself.------------------------------------------------ Contention #4"I said: Something cannot come from nothing. Then, if something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything comes into being from nothing."Your assertion that 'something cannot come from nothing' is an unsubstantiated claim. I don't know how you could even demonstrate this claim - can you? I did link to some information regarding quantum mechanics, in which it seems quite plausible that particles do in fact essentially "come from nothing" and most quantum physicists I've read have shown that this is extremely common in our universe and doesn't violate any known laws of physics. I'm simply not willing to accept the assertion that something cannot come from nothing.Also, you claim that something "becomes inexplicable". This is another fallacy, an argument from ignorance. Just because you can explain it, doesn't mean we won't explain it, we can't explain it, or god must have done it - all we can conclude is that we don't know.------------------------------------------------Contention #5"What qualities does nothingness have that means that the causality principle is abolished? Nothingness is just that - no matter, no energy - nothing. It is entirely up to you to prove that the same rules of causality do not exist. Because we are appealing to inductive reasoning. You are just guessing, and so you must provide proof."I'm not guessing, and no "proof" is required, because it's true BY DEFINITION. Causality describes some event/action/outcome that is 'caused' by some preceding event/action/outcome. The key word there is 'preceding'. This is why you can't change the past, because causality works in one direction in time. If we say that some event E1 caused some event E2, E1 must necessarily be BEFORE E2. This requires TIME. As far as we know, time began when the universe began, so to talk about time outside of the universe involves exactly what you said, "guessing".------------------------------------------------Contention #6"I concur with you with quantum physics - my knowledge is not good enough and so I too will give you quotes"As both agreed, quantum mechanics is over both of our heads. All we can do is appeal to authorities. With this in mind, I'm simply not willing to accept the claim that "something cannot come from nothing" when much of what I read from top physicists seems to point to that not necessarily being true.------------------------------------------------Contention #7 "So, considering all causation is in fact simultaneous, causality IS meaningful, even when there is no time before the event."As far as I can tell, once again, this may as well be word salad. Causation is NOT simultaneous, BY DEFINITION."Physically speaking, the perception of cause and effect in the dropped cup example is a phenomenon of the thermodynamics arrow of time, a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. (1) Controlling the future, or causing something to happen, creates correlations between the doer and the effect, (2) and these can only be created as we move forwards in time, not backwards."------------------------------------------------Contention #8"You argued that the same causal relations may not exist outside of the universe and so the 1st premise cannot be applied. But, you then said that causal relations DON'T apply differently to timeless entities and that causal relations ONLY exist inside of time. You were self-refuting yourself; that was the point I was trying to give."This simply isn't the case. I've repeatedly pointed out that the arrow of time is implicit to the concept of causality, that in order to say an event caused another event, the causal event must have occurred PRIOR to the caused event - which means to talk about causality without time is nonsense.------------------------------------------------Sources:(1) Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry, pp. 109-111.(2) Physical Origins of Time Asymmetry, chapter 6