The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

For this debate, I will only focus on Premise 2. B-Theory of TimeThe entire Kalam Cosmological Argument is dependant upon the A-Theory of time being true over the B-Theory of time. My opponent has not defended the A-Theory of time; so by direct result, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has not been properly defended by Pro. William Lane Craig even agrees that the argument in question is meaningless without the A-Theory of time being true:From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang... If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived. - William Lane Craig [1]When it comes to the particular theory of time, there is no "begins to exist". The past, present and future all exist (in a 4d or n+1d block), with the present image seen on progression through this block, and being no more real than those before or after. Many philosophers and scientists adhere to notion that this view is proven:It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence. - Albert Einstein [2]As it turns out, it is actually impossible to find any objective and universally acceptable definition of “all of space, taken at this instant.” This follows … from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The idea of the block universe is, thus, more than an attractive metaphysical theory. It is a well-established scientific fact. - Rudy Rucker [3]Special relativity [by itself] appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view. -Vesslin PetkovNote that I have no burden to show B-Theory true, while my opponent must show that B-Theory (as described as the last picture in the illustration below) is false for the Kalam to get off the ground: [4]The point of this section is to simply show that if B-Theory is true, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails. Pro has not supported A-Theory. Therefore, the burden of proof has not been met on his side."Begins to Exist"Even if Pro can show that the A-Theory of time is true, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is still in trouble. My opponent claims that it is futile to argue that the universe did not begin to exist. Cosmology tells us the universe began to exist, and so does philosophical argumentation proving that an infinite past is impossible. Is this true however? Not in the slightest. Pro's arguments only defend a finite past of the universe, not an actual coming into being.The term "begins to exist" is used to ascribe two qualities to 'x':i) 'x' has a finite pastii) 'x' came into beingOnly if both i) and ii) are the case when speaking of 'x' can we say that 'x' began to exist. The issue here is that all of the theistic arguments for the universe beginning to exist only demonstrate i), while ii) is left completely unsupported. This means that we are still left without reason to accept Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as only one of the qualities of something beginning to exist have been demonstrated. I will put this concept into an analogy perhaps...In order for 'y' to be a TV for example, it must have certain qualities coinciding with its nature. This means that in order for us to conclude that 'y' is a TV, it must be shown that it is both electronic, and an object which projects moving pictures. If you only show 'y' is electronic, we cannot conclude 'y' is a TV without knowing it produces moving pictures in addition. Similarly, we cannot conclude that 'x' is something that began to exist, when we only know thatone of the necessary qualities of this claim actually hold (specifically the quality of 'x' having a finite past). Here is a thought experiment: Lets say you take all of reality and play it backwards on a projector. Also, imagine that it stops right at the singularity. This means that one could not simply past this boundary and say "there is nothing", then skip to the next frame and say "now we have a singularity". The tape would just run back to the singularity. It would then not make sense to say that the universe "came from" "nothing", because the universe never would have "came from" at all. The claim that the universe "came from" "nothing" in this light, would be the logical equivalence to claiming that "past the edge of the Earth" there is "nothing". How could there be "nothing" "past the edge of the earth", if there is no "past the edge of the Earth"? Correspondingly, how could the universe "come from" "nothing", if the universe did not "come from"? These resulting propositions would not be logically feasible. Even though one could claim that it is conceivable for their to be a causally prior without a temporally prior in retrospect, this would actually has to be shown as a necessity in order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be authenticated. This is vital when taking into the account the burden of proof. Now lets get into a crucial segment of my argument. I concede that the presence of ii) necessarily entails i) when dealing with a temporal beginning, but we have no reason to conclude that i) necessarily entails ii) in contrast. These are not the same state of affairs. To make it more clear; One could not conceive of a temporal coming into being without having an infinite past. It is true on the other hand however that one could easily conceive of something having a finite past without coming into being. The universe could be an example of this, as there has never been a time when it could have not existed even with a finite past. Again, the theist will inevitably claim that there could be a causally prior to the universe, with a lack of a temporally prior punched into the equation. However, one could just as easily conceive of no prior. The latter would actually be more parsimonious in the long run. Regardless, the more one examines the situation the more it comes clear that Pro has not shown a logical or metaphysical necessity for ii) to be the case with regards to 'x', simply because i) is the case with regards to 'x'. An a posteriori argument using empirical observation from within our spatio-temporal universe will not suffice, as relations in a spatio-temporal domain rely extensively on temporal causal dependency. Concept IllustrationTo show the distinction between i) and ii) further, I created an illustration: ii) can clearly be seen to necessarily imply i) pertaining to temporal beginnings, as one cannot conceive of something coming into being in this sense that had an infinite past. However, the existence of i) without ii) has not been shown to be unreasonable a priori. Without a logical or metaphysical link entailing the necessity of ii) from i), we are left with no viable support for the claim that the universe actually began to exist.Do I Deny Modern Cosmology?The key evidence of The Big Bang centers around the Red Shift of the galaxies[4], and the Cosmic Microwave Background[5]. Even if we assume A-Theory, modern cosmology only indicates that the universe has a finite past, not that the universe had a proper coming ito being (as I already proved). The Big Bang theory is not a description of a universe coming into being, it is a theory about the universe evolving from a single point. Any scientist who speaks of a coming into being of this single point, does not have support from modern cosmology behind them; and is speculating. We simply have no necessitating link between a finite past, and a coming into being.Sources[1] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184.[2] Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, 15th ed.pp. 150.[3] The Fourth Dimension, p. 149.[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...[5] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[6] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...