The KCA is sound

Premise One: Extend all of the arguments I made here. He continuously misses the point about the argument. In this premise, I only defend the idea that IF things did begin then they would have a cause. The second premise is where I show that things do begin, namely, the universe. So he has tacitly conceded the warrant to the first premise since his objection is merely the idea that we don’t know if things truly begin to exist. Thus, if I refute his objections to premise 2, 1 also is extended. Premise Two: He brings up the First Law again. He never responds to the evidence that this is true in the universe, but it is not true of the universe. Cosmologists who believe the universe began (i. e. the vast majority of them) are not being illogical since they are not contradicting the First Law—it doesn’t apply to before the universe (that would be absurd). Actual Infinites: Here my opponent makes ad hominem assertions but does not advance objections. He just asserts I don’t know what infinity is. On the contrary, it is because I understand that infinity might be a sound concept but cannot be true in reality that I recognize that absurdities would ensue if the actual infinite were possible. Thus, you can extend the entire argument since the infinite is just not possible in reality. Extend the examples that prove this. 1’ An actually infinite cannot exist 2’ An infinite number of past events is an actual infinite3’ Therefore, an infinite number of past events cannot exist Thus, this is reason to vote for me right now, since premise two is necessarily true insofar as he has yet to deal with the argument. The universe began to exist since an infinite number of past events cannot exist. Second Law: My opponent makes assertions without warranting his statement. He just says it’s a “statistical law. ” No, the Second Law is absolutely true. Close systems (i. e. the universe) tend toward disorder and therefore heat death is inevitable. Since we are here, the universe must have begun—we are not observing heat death. BVG: We all know that these cosmologists will disagree with the conclusion about God that I am drawing. I am not using Vilenkin to prove that God exists. I am using his theorem to prove the universe began, something he would agree with. Thus, move away from the rhetoric and look to the warrants: BVG assumed a mere average expansion rate (Hav) greater than zero. They concluded that any universe wherein Hav>0 was true must be past-finite, the expansion collapses back to a beginning. This would be true of any alternative provided that there is expansion. I know Vilenkin does not believe in God, but that is irrelevant. His theorem proves the universe began: “A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small. This assumption should certainly be satisfied in the inflating false vacuum. The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation without a beginning is impossible. ” Conclusion: The universe has a cause He says time, beginning and mind are all temporal concepts. This just assumes atheism in premises that attempt to prove atheism! Just because these things are temporal in our experience does not mean that they are temporal necessarily. In fact, the analysis of the conclusion from Craig indicates that a mind is necessary as the cause for only a mind would be able to freely give rise to a new effect in time. I concede, the cause is changeless. God is changeless! He has failed to show why this is impossible and indeed most Christian philosophers advance the claim that God is changeless and this is actually a warrant for Him being the cause (see the Craig analysis). If the two premises are true the cause is necessarily a person since nothing physical can be the cause of everything physical! The universe is all things physical which means it is incoherent to say something physical caused it. The cause is immaterial, powerful. Non-personal immaterial things do not stand in causal relations, so its probably a mind.