The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is False

It's nice to see Pro is continuing the site. Let's examine his arguments further, shall we?Rebuttal:Fallacy of Compsition:Nice, we know what this fallacy is. So what you're saying is that something can begin to exist without a cause? I believe that's what you're implying. You'll need to back it up. Someone can claim something's a fallacy, but needs to back up their claims. Is the Kalam argument really commiting such a fallacy, or does everything that begins to exist have a cause?"You defended the first premise by giving an example of a baby or a computer, which are objects in the universe and do not apply to the universe." So because it's the Universe, we can't use examples to show that everything that begins to exist has a cause? That doesn't sound right. Something cannot begin to exist because of "nothing" (Which I'll refer to as "emptiness", or clarity's sake). Ifsomething begins to exist, it must have something that made it start existing. Emptiness cannot create anything. But Pro's implying that emptiness created the Universe, but emtpiness isn't anything; it's nothing; it isn't capable of doing things.Ultimately, we must answer 2 questions: Did the Universe begin to exist? And if th Universe did begin to exist, did it come from something? I'll expand on the 3 possible answers to the questions.Fallacy of Equivocation:"The term 'begins to exist' is the confusing factor of the argument." I don't see how. To begin to exist is to come into existence. Simple."a. The 'beginning to exist' of everything we can observe around us is actually just the rearrangement of the already existing atoms." This is true. Everything in the current day is made of, and has always been, made of atoms. But did the Universe's atoms always exist?According to Pro, the fallacy of composition is "the error of assuming that what is true of a member of a group is true for the group as a whole". He attempts to counter the first premise of the kalam argument like this: "If everything in the universe begins via a cause, the Universe began to exist with a cause? Nonsense!". What does he say next? "The 'beginning to exist' of everything we can observe around us is actually just the rearrangement of the already existing atoms. For example, the atoms that make up a fetus already existed prior to the fetus's existence.""If everything in the universe begins via a cause, the Universe began to exist with a cause? Nonsense!""Everything that's 'caused' is just the rearrangement of atoms, ergo, the Universe is a rearrangement"Are these statements not similar? My opponent says that we cannot use objects within the Universe to reach a conclusion about the Universe. And what does he do? Use objects within the Universe to reach a conclusion about the Universe! My opponent has contradicted himself. Is the Kalam argument committing the composition fallacy? If yes, then so are you. If you aren't committing the composition fallacy, then the Kalam argument isn't committing the fallacy. Both of you are using a very similar line of reasoning.And besides, who said the Universe's atoms have always existed? The deity could've made the atoms, which then were arranged to create planets and stars and whatnot."Even if the universe began to exist as a result of therearrangment of the already existing atoms, then it actually implies that the universe is eternal because atoms existed even before the Big Bang." Atoms existed before the Big Bang? Where's your evidence? And how exactly to you suppose the Big Bang happened?Premise 2; The Universe began to Exist."Cosmology is not my domain so I dare not claim anything about the origin of the universe. I neither claimed that the universe was beginningless or that it had a beginning." Well, it's either the Universe did begin to exist, or it didn't begin, and has always existed. Evidence suggests the former.""human logic cannot be used to prove that the universe can't be eternal." I argued that argument like "if the Universe has always existed, we'd be out of usable energy by now, since there cannot be an infinite amount of energy" does not work for the universe." I expect your own logic stating why. Luckily, you provided some."Logic is not the absolute true in the universe. Rather logic is something that evolved along with human, it is a tool invented by human that reflects the patterns of the surroundings." Logic isn't an object. It's a process of thinking. We didn't create logic, it came with us."If logic is man-made and reflects only what human have experienced, then it cannot be applied to something that we have never experienced such as the universe." Again, logic isn't an object, it's a process. We don't have to experience something to put thought into it. For example, we haven't experienced the results of the 2016 Election. But if we consider facts, Hillary Clinton will probably win."You defended the second premise by saying that "the unvierse has to be finite because you cannot have an infinite amount of energy." You have never experienced an actual infinity does not imply that it doesn't really exist!" I should have expanded upon this. Energy doesn't last forever, for example, a battery. Assuming we have infinite energy, we'd not be running out of energy.But according to the 2nd law os theordynamics, energy gets used up. Eventually, we will run out of energy. Therefore, there must be a finite amount of energy.Argument:If the Universe began to exist, it must have a cause. Pro says that we cannot comprehend this, since we haven't actually seen the Big Bang. However, he avoids the real problem: Does the Universe have a beginning? Evidence says yes. If Pro thinks the 2nd premsie of the Kalam argument is false, he must show a reason to say the Universe had no cause. If the Universe has no cause of it's beginning, we must assume the Universe has always existed. But then Pro will have to show how it's possible for the Universe to have always existed.So what do you say? ... Pokepuff?