The KCA is sound

Premise 1Conditional: If X begins to exist such that it had a first moment of its existence, then it has a cause. Remember that a conditional can be true and its antecedent (X began to exist) false. In this premise I need only prove that IF things did begin in this way then a cause is necessary. My opponent did not refute the reducio ad absurdum warrant I gave for this argument and I will restate it: Non-being, by definition, lacks any and all properties, including causal ones. Keeping this in mind, suppose that X could come into being from non-being. This would mean that non-being is the cause of X. But surely this is absurd for non-being lacks causal properties. Therefore, to say non-being caused X is incoherent and violates the law of non-contradiction. Refuting “refutations” I am not “assuming” that anything begins to exist. He drops the analysis that I need only prove the conditional true to support premise 1. Premise 1 can be true and it may also be the case that things do not actually begin to exist. However, if they did begin to exist, then they would necessarily require causes. My opponent says “nothing” is an incoherent concept. I concur absolutely. However, he seems to conflate true nothingness with the absence of all things physical. That nothing physical exists does not equate to the statement “nothing exists.” This would beg the question against an immaterial realm, which is the very thing he is trying to disprove and which he assumes as true in his argument. Premise 2 Does the First Law preclude a beginning? Again, my opponent is confused here. He said my response assumed that the universe had a beginning. Suppose it did not. This would not change the statement that if it did, then the First Law would not contradict that fact. The reason is that the laws of thermodynamics assume the existence of the universe! So that if the universe did begin then, necessarily, the First Law would not apply. It applies once the universe exists. Thus, this does not show that the universe did not begin, as all physicists acknowledge (especially the vast majority who do hold that the universe began). As Craig points out, “They don’t seem to realize that if that were true, then the standard Big Bang model would violate the laws of nature! But as you point out, the law only holds once the natural realm exists. It governs everything in spacetime but not the origin of spacetime itself.” [1] Warrant: Actual Infinites He just drops this entire argument because his arguments do not respond to the warrants I gave. He says that you cannot add or subtract from the infinite. In concept that may be true. Remember, he conceded that infinity is a concept. However, if the infinite did exist in reality, that is, if an infinite set of concrete objects existed, there would be nothing stopping me from subtracting or adding. This leads to self-contradictions (contradictions to which he has yet to answer). Suppose I have an infinite number of coins. Suppose I take away every even-numbered coin. Infinity-infinity=infinity. Now suppose I take away every coin except for the first three, infinity-infinity=3! These contradictions cannot exist in reality. He has yet to answer the argument. He then offers a red herring about how physicists and mathematicians employ the infinite. Yes. In concept. It breaks down in reality. Thus, the universe began:1’ An actually infinite cannot exist 2’ An infinite number of past events is an actual infinite 3’ Therefore, an infinite number of past events cannot exist The Second Law of Thermodynamics All he says here is that there are exceptions to the law, namely, the big bang. Even if this were true, he ignores the fact that these laws are true once the universe exists. It is not something that can be used in terms of appealing to the creation event! In any case, the Second Law is as well established as any other law. It is consensus that heat death will happen because maximum entropy will be reached since all things tend toward disorder. Since we are not in a state of heat death (we would be if the universe is eternal and indeed there would be no “we”), the universe must have begun. BVG He concedes that Vilenkin agrees that his theorem is evidence for the beginning of the universe UNLESS you avoid it by appealing to contraction. The only theorem to which he appeals, however, is not even specific to this universe, as the authors admit. It, therefore, does not undermine the assumptions with which BVG functions. BVG works provided Hav>0, that is, that there is some average rate of expansion greater than 0. Our universe is expanding which is why the conclusion holds. Note that even if BVG is not sufficient evidence for this premise, I am winning the argument from actual infinites and the Second Law. Thus, if BVG is a reason to support the second premise, it is icing on the cake. Premise 3 He then tries to indict the cause as God by claiming that a timeless/changeless mind is incoherent. However, he drops the warrant (from Craig) in the very first argument I presented that shows that since the cause is necessarily timeless and therefore changeless, the only way to have a cause is a mind! The coherence is outlined in the evidence I presented in that argument. [1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...