The Kalam Cosmological Argument Successfully Demonstrates its Conclusion.

An interesting response. I will defend myself a little and put forth a few final arguments to get my point across. B Theory and Beginning I can easily conceptualize the temporal beginning of this hopefully persuasive argument. Why? Because the beginning exists within a universe containing all space and time. However, when one is speaking of a four dimensional manifold (mathematical object) that contains all time, one cannot truly say that it had a beginning. This is what the B theory really means: objects contained within space time, such as my hopefully appealing and comprehensive response, may be said to have a beginning because they are evolving and changing through time. To elaborate, think of a frog. A frog begins as an egg, changes into a tadpole, then soon becomes an adult. Notice that the frog is changing over time. However, the universe is not like a frog (quote of the day) because the universe contains all of time. Therefore, the universe cannot be said to evolve or change because it is a fixed object containing time. Allow me to attempt to explain this in a simpler way. Suppose that all that exists is a very large sphere. It just sits there, and nothing ever happens to it. The sphere is changeless, timeless, and truly eternal. But if you look inside the sphere, you see complex lines that frequently intersect, and in doing so branch off in new directions. In addition, you notice that you can mathematically predict where any line is going by looking to the left. You can say that every point on the line can absolutely, with 100% certainty, be predicted by looking at all of the lines to the left. So you might say that the path of any line is "caused" by whatever is going on to the left. This would be the most perfect possible example of "causality": a 100% rate of correlation. Statisticians can only dream about that. But although we know that the paths of our lines are "caused", can we then conclude the sphere itself is caused by something to the left? Well, no. Our rule of causality only applies inside the sphere. In addition, the term left has no meaning past the edge of the sphere because their can't be anything to the left of the sphere. This, then, is our universe. Add an extra dimension, think of the "lines" as the paths traced by fundamental particles, and change the shape (especially on the right-hand side), and you have our universe. This way of thinking about the universe, with time as just another dimension, is what B theory and Minkowski space time are all about. As you can see, this view renders the Kalam simply ridiculous, and even William Lane Craig admits that the Kalam fails if this view is correct. [1] Limits of Inductive Argument I'm afraid pro rather missed the point with my "everything which begins must have a material cause" argument. My "argument" was not meant to be a sound and convincing argument but rather to demonstrate exactly the principles which pro quotes from Hume. I gave an argument which was obviously flawed, as I explained, to show the limits of inductive arguments. So I ask you, pro, what is the difference from my case that the universe had material cause and the Kalam? Both rely on exactly the same style inductive argument, and you haven't provided any event without a material cause, so it's just as valid to say everything which begins to exist has a material cause as to say that it has a cause. The inductive arguments used in either case are equally flawed. The only saving grace, pro claims, is that "There is also intuitive or abductive (from the parts to the best "whole" conclusion) reason which can also lead us to believe that all "effects" must have a "cause" by definition." But this is no defense! Aside from it being an "intuitive argument", this is merely a tautology. I don't question that effects must have causes; I question whether "everything which begins to exist" must have a cause, and pro can provide no justification for this other than a flawed inductive argument. Pro's assertion of a meaningless definition in no way provides any justification for premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Definitions Pro has failed to give a definition for "beyond time." By what criteria are we to decide whether something is or isn't beyond time? Without a definition his argument is meaningless. Pro has failed to give a rigorous definition of "begins to exist." Considering that I ruined WLC's definition last round, I would think pro would try to bail himself out by giving us a good definition, but so far he hasn't despite my request, By definition, the universe is everything that exists, including time. Please don't misquote me and attempt to play word games about time and the universe "coexisting." Time is simply a dimension of the universe. Causality sans Time Causality, as far as we know, only occurs within time according to natural laws. To try to extrapolate the principles of causality to something as alien and complex as the Big Bang, where space, time, density, and temperature approach infinity and reality is governed by an undiscovered model of quantum gravity, and "before" which time doesn't even exist, is preposterous. [2] Additionally, assuming the cause is anything other than natural is also profoundly unscientific. If the cause is natural, then the cause itself can be said to be part of the universe, negating the Kalam entirely. Summing Up 1. The universe contains all time, and thus transcends time. Even WLC admits that if the B theory of time is true, the universe no more came into existence at the Big Bang than a yardstick does at the first inch. [1] 2. The statement "everything which begins to exist has a cause" has only an inductive argument to back it up. This argument extrapolates what we know about ordinary things within space time to the whole of space time, and to the Big Bang event, an event so radical that space and time both curve approaching infinity, "before" which there is no time, and for which the appropriate model hasn't even been discovered. This extrapolation of a general principle to radically different circumstances is clearly fallacious, as I showed by using the same reasoning to "show" that "everything which begins to exist has a material cause", a claim which pro rightly rejected. If we apply the same standard to the Kalam it fails on many levels. 3. Pro seems to have serious issues defining key terms in a rigorous way. Without rigorous definitions, a logical argument falls apart easily. 4. The Kalam cosmological argument extrapolates the fundamentally temporal principle of causality to a purported region outside the universe in which time doesn't exist. Pro just assumes that it can happen. Again, highly fallacious. 5. The burden of proof is on pro to show that the Kalam "successfully demonstrates its conclusion." Pro has provided little justification for this claim, and I have shown many flaws in this argument which make it impossible for the argument to succeed. Sources 1- See Video http://www.youtube.com... 2- http://www.einstein-online.info...