Kalam argument is sound

I'll start with a discussion of B Theory time and then return to rebuttals. == B Theory == Amazingly, Pro admits to embracing B Theory time in Round 3 ("As a B-theorist myself..."). By admitting this, Pro has essentially conceded the debate, since the Kalam Argument is not at all compatible with B Theory time. In fact, Pro cited Dr. William Lane Craig in Round 4, one of the Kalam Argument's chief defenders. Dr. Craig himself has stated, "On a B Theory of time, noting really ever comes into existence. . . On the B Theory it seems to me that the premise 'whatever comes into being has a cause,' that would still be true, but nothing comes into being so the universe didn't begin to exist in that sense." [1] So Dr. Craig himself admits that, on B Theory time, Premise 2 of the Kalam is false and therefore the argument falls apart. So it is quite strange when Pro says "B-theory is absolutely compatible with Kalam and I would even argue that it makes Kalam easier to explain." I would challenge Pro to please explain Kalam assuming a B-Theory, given that Dr. Craig himself disagrees. Pro seems to get B Theory generally correct by describing it as "tenseless" in that there is no favored "seat of reality" but rather, events merely sequence relative to each other. But my opponent is mistaken by still thinking, quote, "passage of time is still true and time still does elapse..." No, it doesn't. Sequencing of events does not mean time is elapsing. If you place 10 coins in a line, the first coin indeed comes before the last coin in the sequence, but that doesn't mean the first coin EXISTS before the last coin - they both still exist simultaneously and eternally, albeit within a structured sequence. As another example, think of a ruler - the first inch comes before the last inch, but the ruler doesn't COME INTO BEING at the first inch - all inches exist simultaneously within the ruler. Pro magically makes the jump to saying this makes it compatible with Kalam without really explaining why. Once again, I fail to see the connection. This is impossible - there can be no temporal beginnings if there is no "seat of reality" as Pro put it against which time passes. Therefore, Premise 1 and 2 are mistaken and the conclusion does not follow. Special and General Relativity confirm this is true. In Round 3, Pro says "Con claims that light is constant everywhere but right off the gate, this is false. [5] and He claims that Relativity proves eternalism but this has been disputed. [6] It has even been argued that special relativity refutes eternalism. [7]." But Pro never actually explains why these claims are false, they mere cite sources. You can't make an argument in the footnotes. You have to present the arguments/rebuttals yourself. Until Pro actually articulates why they think these universally accepted scientific facts are false, my arguments still stand. Going back to Pro's meatloaf analogy, Pro is only confirming Relativity! Pro says, "The events are merely described as events that elapse before or after relative, not to any observer, but relative to other meat loafs or other events in the same sequence." This is exactly what Relativity says, and Relativity has been proven true in every single repeated experiment for the last 100 years. So Pro has not at all rebutted my points here. In sum, since Pro has admitted to being a B-Theorist, and since I have demonstrated that the Kalam Argument is incompatible with B Theory, my opponent now has a lot of explaining to do.... == Rebuttlas == 1) Attacking Conclusion - ok, here Pro has a point. I got carried away and began attacking the VALIDITY of the Kalam Argument rather than its SOUNDNESS. So even though I have still shown the Kalam to be invalid, that is not the premise of this debate, so I will move on. However, I still have plenty of ammunition to show why the Kalam is unsound, as I will detail below. 2) Composition Fallacy - here Pro and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I still see a glaring Composition Fallacy. There is almost no difference between saying "Because all of the parts of the universe have a cause for their beginning, then universe itself as a whole has a cause for its beginning" (which Pro admits IS a Composition Fallacy) and saying "P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: The universe has a cause" They are virtually the same, the words are just arranged a bit differently. We'll let the voters decide on this one. 3) A priori definition of nothing, PSR, and Reductio ad absurdum - I agree with Pro's A priori definition of nothing. It doesn't matter if B Theory is true. As far as PSR, I also agree, and the causeless REASON for the universe is simple - the universe exists tenselessly in spacetime, as predicted by Einstein/Minkowski. So I am not in violation of the PSR. As far as Reductio ad absurdum, Pro is again assuming an A-Theory of time, namely nothing actually "pops" into existence, everything just exists tenselessly. Furthermore, Pro is committing a taxicab fallacy themselves. If a skeptic cannot say that causality does not apply outside the universe, and that "causation is a metaphysical principle that governs all of reality whether natural or supernatural," then Pro has just contradicted themselves, because if causation DOES apply outside the universe to both natural and supernatural, then Pro must provide an explanation for what caused their supernatural, spaceless, timeless, immaterial mind. I have no problems with my opponent's description of the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite, scythe revenge, etc... But all these examples assume an A-Theory of time. I have already showed why this is problematic. 4) Metaphysical Absolutes - Pro continues to ask us to accept their Special Pleading Fallacies. Let's detail one by one. Material things from material things: All Pro says here is "The supernatural could exist ... we do not know." This is ridiculous. If it is acceptable for my opponent to say this, then why can't I just say "things could exist causelessly ... we do not know."? Then Pro tries to shift the burden of proof saying, "Con can not prove it and since Con does not know whether or not the supernatural exists then his example is not metaphysically true." This is blatant goalpost shifting. My opponent very clearly wrote in Round 1 that the BOP is with Pro, so if they are going to propose the supernatural exists then they are going to need to provide proof. Pro's "proof" of supernatural experiences with people can be explained by a host of other reasons - hallucination, visions, dreams, lies, tricks of the eye, etc... Anecdotal experience is by no means proof. Nothing is ever caused by something not itself in time - Here Pro insists that "I did not in any way claim that this timeless reality is representative of our reality." So then why should we accept it, if even Pro admits it's probably not true? Also, Pro did not address my point on the contradiction of a timeless cause violating the principle of traversing an actual infinite - if a cause lasts forever then we will never see the effect. In other places in the debate (like advocating the supernatural), Pro is very comfortable using inductive evidence to infer conclusions. I'm using the same method here - we inductively see that ALL causes are within time, so why can we not infer that a cause cannot be timeless? This is a lose-lose for Pro, because either we must reject induction whole-sale or a cause cannot be timeless. All minds are physically embodied - I don't really understand Pro's rebuttal here. They ask "can you point me to at least one example where the mind is physical?" Well, what I actually said is all minds are physically EMBODIED - so yes, I can. The minds of humans, squirrels, fish, zebras... all in bodies. Can you give me at least one example where a mind is NOT physically embodied? Also, minds are physical. All a mind is is a sequence of synapses, chemicals, hormones, and organic matter interacting to form emotions and perceptions and instincts. 5) Semantics on Time - Pro is misreading what I'm saying. I'm saying I agree with what they wrote about time if we assume A Theory is true. But once again, we cannot do that. The phrase "began to exist" is meaningless if we live within B Theory, and Pro has not given us enough evidence to reject that possibility. I'm not playing with definitions, I'm rejecting false assumptions. [1]