The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

Hi Pro CONTENTION 1 What I mean is that if God is the only member of NBE, then the 2 expressions: 'everything that doesn't begin to exist' and 'God' have the same referent. That is, they refer to the same thing. If the two had the same meaning, then it would be more like 'a Maximally Great Being' and 'God', and if you knew 'there exists a Maximally Great Being' to be true, then 'God exists' would also be true. However, if you were given the statement 'everything that doesn't begin to exist', you could not then conclude that 'God exists'. Rather, 'God' is a sub-set of 'everything that doesn't begin to exist', so they pick out the same thing. So if an argument picks out the same meaning, then it would most certainly be question begging. However if they pick out the same referent - like the Kalam does - then it is merely a good deductive argument. What the objection essentially is, is the law of excluded middle [1] - everything either begins to exist or it does not. This is not question begging, nor circular, but is a necessary truth. I hope this helps. CONTENTION 2 It is not relevant what usage of terms I am using, or whether numbers and shapes physically exist or not. Another member of NBE is numbers. Or shapes. They come under the set 'not beginning to exist'. Their properties are a different matter all together. As with a timeless space, I would think that a space that travels at the speed of light for an eternity in an infinite universe world would be timeless. So I think that it is entirely possible, yes. Regardless, I have already explained in Contention 1 why I don't need to provide another member of NBE. I have, bu I don't need to. CONTENTION 3 Let's get this clear. I give 2 reasons to believe that whatever begins to exist has a cause. These reasons are independent to the universe. They are indented to apply to everything. I am not citing our experience in the universe to claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause; instead I am referring to the logical absurdity of the claim that something can come from nothing. CONTENTION 4 Pro asks whether we can prove the claim. Well, we can use inductive reasoning, yes. We can say, 'this is more plausibly true than not', and so it is the job of the objector to prove that it actually is not more plausibly true than not. Again, Physics isn't my strong point. But as far as I know, the quantum vacuum is not 'nothing' - rather, it is a sea of fluctuating energy. Pro then accuses me of using an argument from ignorance but, the point is that there is 'nothing' everywhere in the universe - not everywhere is inhabited by either matter or energy. If something can come from nothing, and there is nothing everywhere in the universe, then we should be observing many things coming into being - other stars, planets, other universes. That is the general point I was trying to make. CONTENTION 5 Pro decides to ignore my argument about all causality being ultimately simultaneous. I'll repeat it, showing that actually by definition, causality is simultaneous. The definition of 'coming into being': The thing exists at Time 'T', and there is no point prior to Time 'T', in which the thing exists. Upon this definition, time comes into being at time T. There was no time prior to when time existed. So, that is fine and no disagreements here. In terms of simultaneous causation: if A is the cause, and B is the effect. If A were to disappear before the time at which B is produced, would B nevertheless come into being? Of course not. But if time is continuous, then no matter how close to B's appearance A's disappearance takes place, there will always be an interval of time between A's disappearance and B's appearance. But then why or how B comes into being is unknown. Because there is no cause at the moment to produce it. So I have explained why actually all causation is simultaneous. Causation can occur even without a prior moment of time. CONTENTION 6 We both agree that we don't know enough about quantum physics and so we both appeal to authority. But, from all of the top physicists I have encountered, the vacuum is not 'nothing' - rather, there is energy that fluctuates, which brings a very small amount of matter into being, which then almost immediately goes back into non-existence. CONTENTION 7 I explained why Pro is wrong in Contention 5. CONTENTION 8 I explained in Contention 7 why Pro is not right here. Again, using what Pro asserte, for all we know, causation is different outside of the universe compared to inside of the universe. I guess you could say that Pro is committing the fallacy of composition! Thanks for the great debate, Pro! God Bless Sources: [1] http://www.princeton.edu...