The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

I thank con for his response. He raises some very interesting questions which I will attempt to address. --"KCA plays by two different rules, rules that apply within the universe "physics" and rules that apply outside of the universe "metaphysics"."-- I will stipulate that the KCA asserts that God exists and created the universe. In other words, it states that something must exist, that can act outside the universe, and it‘s laws. Outside that assertion, it doesn‘t "play" with, try to establish, argue against, or use any metaphysical rules. For instance, it doesn't try to argue how, when, or why He created it, using metaphysical principles as justification. Furthermore, even if taken as accurate, I don't think this statement refutes the KCA, in any way. That would require some evidence, or at least some convincing logic, as to why something can't be both. --"Now, I won't challenge that you can't get something from nothing within the universe, but why should we accept that as a rule that applies outside of the universe ? "-- First of all, the "something from nothing" comment was mine. The KCA does not argue HOW the universe was created, or even that there was absolutely nothing. It simply states that our present universe began. That said, con makes a fair point here. I can't show why it must apply, so we can't assume that, because the "something from nothing" rule applies inside the universe, that it MUST also apply outside. By the same token though, I've seen nothing to show that it CAN'T apply. In addition, following that logic, since we can't show that the other rules, that apply within the universe, MUST also apply outside the universe, why then must we deem the possibility of God, to be illogical?? One other observation, in this round, con asks why the laws that exist, within the universe, have to apply outside the universe. In arguing FOR the existence of something, outside the universe, it seems that would increase the possibility of a being, such as God. In addition, if there IS an "outside the universe", wouldn't that contradict the argument of an infinite and eternal universe?? --""Pro made the argument that the more you go back in time the smaller the universe becomes. Maybe I wasn't clear enough before, but I was asking why Pro regards a shrinking universe means that the universe began to exist. Half of something is always something, if the universe is always shrinking then there was no point where it did not exist.""-- I did bring that up us a possibility, it wasn't my theory though, it‘s called the "Big Crunch Theory". It doesn't involve an infinitely shrinking universe. At some point, through whatever mechanism, it will collapse and no longer exist. --"Although pro rejects a beginning-less actual infinite universe, Why can't the universe be a beginning-less potential infinite universe ?"-- To make a logical argument for that, one has to abandon known scientific principles, use wordplay, and go against minds like Hawking and Sagan (atheists), who believe that God doesn't exist, but that the universe had a beginning. The vast majority of the scientific community operate with that as an accepted fact. If non-theists have to use the same principles that theists use, in their argument against God, does it really refute anything?? *My source is a video link so, per rules, I won't post it, but it's on you tube. It's called "God, the Universe, and Everything Else." Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Arthur C. Clark --"Time as a system of measure is just a bunch of concepts WE made up. If we created them, then we can uncreate them. This explanation of time is not consistent with time being objectively real."-- When our alarm goes off in the morning, we start our day based on what time the clock says it is. Would your boss accept "Time isn't objectively real", as an excuse for being late?? The first humans didn't have alarm clocks, but they still woke up, and went about their day. This is because the physical actions that time measures, movement and change, were still present. --"Funny, I don't think we can assert that the universe began to exist just because we created the concept of time."-- I don't believe that to be part of my argument. I apologize for taking so long to respond, I'm having some computer problems. I look forward to the next round.