The Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.Objection: You can't get metaphysical absolutes from our observations in our universeI maintain that going from how things are in our universe to therefore that's how things are about the universe as a whole and/or how things are for everything and anything beyond our universe with no exceptions is a HUGE leap to make, and Pro has an unjustified assumption in their argument that what is true of how things are in our universe is also true for anything and everything outside and beyond it.Never the less, accepting from out own observations to metaphysical absolutes just creates more problems for Pro down the road.(Pros Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something)Objection: Circular reasoningRecall that even if granted that a state of nothing has no casual power, and thus in the MOST LITERAL sense, nothing can't create something, nothing also has no power to restrict something from beginning to exist, yes, even something beginning to exist without a cause.When pushed on how Pro was was justifying that even in a state of nothing, something else can't begin without a cause without assuming the impossibility of such a thing in the first place Pro replies...."Well, of course! It"s not a mere assumption, it"s a universal observation!"Hang on, what is exactly does this "universal observation" that Pro invokes involve and justify exactly ?That things that begin to exist in our universe have a cause ? ok.That in a state of nothing that something else can't begin without a cause ? ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!Once again It is shown Pro merely has already assumed anything that begins to exist must have a cause in order to justify the begins to exist must have a cause premise, circular reasoning.The universe did not began to exist1) X began to exist, if and only if X exists, and there was a time in the past where X did not exist.2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not existC) Therefore the universe did not "began" to exist.Previous round I said..."Maybe Pro or the reader has committed the following false equivalency fallacy thinking either..." That should be false dilemma fallacy [1].I reject Pros claim that this is an argument based on semantics in the sense of being a mere word game. I gave a clear definition on what it means for something to begin to exist or not within the context of that argument.Consider where Pro says..."Create implies that before, something did not exist, and later it did " the instant of the transition is the "creation." Such description is only possible within a time dimension,"Notice "create" here can be replaced with caused. Created/caused implies that something did not exist and later on it did. Pros own reasoning here leads us to the conclusion that the universe was not created/caused.Pro has shown no fault against my argument on what it means for something to begin to exist, nor does Pro dispute that there is no prior state (speaking time wise) in which the universe was absent.What are the rules for determining metaphysical possibilities/impossibilities ?Recall my argument here that if observations of our universe can be extrapolated to justify metaphysical absolutes, granted it gets Pro their what ever begins to exist must have a cause, likewise I argued other metaphysical absolutes could be justified such as...""(A)Material things come from material things." & "(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time." (A)Material things come from material things.Pro claims..."Material things always come from material things: Well, not always" for example, we have the power to control our own physical actions through our immaterial consciousness"That's an extremely controversial position to take, and involves a debate in of it's self of what is or isn't going on in the mind-body problem [2]. Suffice to say at this point in the debate it just an unsupported assertion by Pro.Pro claims..."Second, quantum vacuum fluctuations are examples that not everything that begins to exist has a material cause."David Albert argues..."Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states " no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems " are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-"theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn"t this or that particular arrangement of the fields " what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don"t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don"t." [3]I argue that contra Pro, we do NOT have observations of material things coming from immaterial things thus the metaphysical absolute that "Material things come from material things" is justified on the same grounds that Pro themself uses.This contradicts Pros claim that the universe has an immaterial cause.(C) Nothing is ever caused by anything that is not itself in time.Consider where Pro says..."There are reasons to believe this principle is not universally observed either."........and then gave not one example to counter this claim.Once again same rules apply. We observe that causes exist in time without any observation to the contrary, ergo we extrapolate to the now metaphysical rule that causes must exist in time. This directly contradicts Pros claim that the cause of the universe is a timeless one.Consider where Pro says..." It is entirely possible that the First Cause existed timelessly without the universe, and then changed to a temporal relationship simultaneously at the moment of creation"If the cause of the universe exists "simultaneously" with the effect, then the cause is not timeless now is it ?Interesting possibilities aside it's irrelevant, cause Pro didn't allow mere possibility to be allowed to trump their absolute metaphysics justified on what we observe, like wise Pro is granted no such trump card against my absolute metaphysics against their argument which are also justified on observation extrapolated to metaphysical absolutes.I argue that I have established two metaphysical absolutes using the same standard that Pro used that directly contradict Pros argument.Kalam is incompatible with B theory of timeGranted I only briefly mentioned Einsteins relativity..."In special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity shows that there's no unique present, and that each point in the universe can have a different set of events that are in its present moment.Many of special relativity's now-proven counter-intuitive predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation, are a result of this. Relativity of simultaneity implies eternalism (and hence a B-theory of time), where the present for different observers is a time slice of the four dimensional universe. This is demonstrated in the Rietdijk"Putnam argument and additionally in an advanced form of this argument called the Andromeda paradox, created by mathematical physicist Roger Penrose. [4]Pro argues what seems to be the case, but like the sun going down, and the moon can look bigger than the sun, appearances can be deceiving.Pro seems to imply that cause he doesn't have Dr Manhattan [5] powers of perceiving past/present/future this counts against B theory, does B theory logically entail such a thing ? no.I thank Pro for the debate, it has been fun.Sources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://watchmen.wikia.com...