The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

However, I feel he is putting forward many red herrings, and misrepresenting the point of my arguments to the furthest extent. Did The Universe Begin To Exist? Nowhere did I concede that the universe is infinite, so my opponent opens up with a straw man right out of the gate. I will concede this point though. The problem is that if the universe had a beginning, that does not mean that the universe began to exist. My opponent also talks about a "before the universe was created", however this assumes that there was a "before the universe was created". There is no reason to think that there was any before the universe, or prior to the universe. In order for their to be a cause of the universe, there would have to be a causally prior to the universe, but there is no reason given by Pro to think there even was a prior to the universe in any context. Now, If something begins to exist, then that means it comes into being. If it comes into being, then this necessitates that prior to the first time it exists, that thing = out of being. Essentially, we have to start with that thing out of being, then a transition occurs from no thing, to that thing existing. This is what it means to begin to exist, or come into being. A finite past of a thing doesn't really tell us at all if it began to exist. We don't know I began to exist because I am 26 years old for example, we know I began to exist because a year before I was born, I did not exist (an "out of being" is plugged into the equation necessarily). I am not saying that temporal priority is necessary, that was just an example. If there is any state of affairs, even atemporally prior to a the first time a thing exists, then we can say that it began to exist. However, even if we assume A-Theory, and a first state of the universe, this still doesn't get one a coming into being. It is possible that there is no prior in any sense to the first state of the universe. If this is the case, then the notion of there either being no universe "prior", or a universe "prior" would make no sense, as there would be no prior, at all! There is a distinction between:(1) A starting moment of the universe (a 1st state)(2) A starting moment of the universe which came into being from no starting moment of the universe, e. i. "nothing" (transition from no 1st state, to a 1st state)(1) follows from (2), as the truth of (1) is included in (2) itself. There is no logical or metaphysical link requiring (2) to follow from (1). An a posteriori argument will not work, as any examples will involve parts of the universe, not the universe as a whole itself. Arguments for a finite past (The Big Bang, Philosophical arguments ect. ) only demonstrate, at best, (1) not (2). If A-Theory is true and the universe has a finite past, it would not follow that the universe came into being, or violates ex nihilo nihil fit under Atheism. This means, that a finite past of the universe is not sufficient to establish that the universe came into being. In order for it to be true that the universe came into being, the universe must have been out of being (pasty tense not necessary, any type of prior state of affairs established would work). The theist hasn't established that the universe has ever been out of being. It certainly does not follow from a finite past, and is not synonymous with it. Dr, Craig has a definition of coming into being: e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact. [1]The definition is insufficient. This is because it only speaks on a starting moment of the universe, not a starting moment of the universe that came from no starting point of the universe. Also, time is tensed under the Moving Spotlight Theory of time but it is an eternalist theory of time[2]. Meaning that a universe under an eternalist framework could come into being under Craig's definition, which is metaphysically possible. Philosophers Richard Swinburne and Adolf Grunbaum have a definition as well[3]. It can be formulated like this:e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at sometime t and (ii) there is time prior to t at which e does not exist. The above definition is not sufficient, because even though priority is necessary, there is no reason why temporal priority is necessary. I developed a sufficient definition with regards to a coming into being: e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) prior to t, is out of being, and (iv) eternalism is falseThe above describes a true coming into being, not just a finite past. Also, it solves the problem of Dr. Craig's definition pertaining to the Moving Spotlight Theory. Here is a diagram showing the difference between a true coming into being, and just a finite past: My definition actually describes the model in the top frame, which makes it sufficient. So, while the universe may have had a first state, that doesn't mean that the first state came into being. My opponent must not only show that the universe has a finite past, but that the universe actually began to exist. This has not been accomplished, and Pro has the burden of proof to establish the resolution. NothingLets assume that the universe did come into being. My opponent says that I cannot say that there was "nothing" prior if there existed a zero energy state, or some other quantum state as those would count as "something". I agree. However, I never claimed that if the universe came into being, it did so from nothing. Thus, that was just a straw man on Pro's behalf. I did not post the video to endorse Laurence Krauss's view that the universe can come from nothing, I posted as a source to back up the claim that if the universe is flat, the total energy is zero. I am saying that if the universe came into being, it could have done so from a zero energy state. I did not once endorse the view that the universe came from absolutely nothing. Apparent CoincidencesMy opponent has not put forward any actual noteworthy coincidences. He just lists random things and calls them coincidences, then claims that God follows. That is a non-sequitur. He also dodged the fact that Jupiter has 4 rings and not 3, but he still talks about Jupiter like it only has 3 rings. Also, my opponent straw mans me once again by stating that I asserted that we cannot deduce things based off probability. We can, however Pro is doing this fallaciously. Pro has not explained why only God can be a probable explanation for everything he lists. He just assumes it. None of Pro's arguments have anything specifically to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, even if they are arguments for God. Additionally, if it is true that the writers of the Bible were able to predict things that turned out to be true, how can that only be plausibly explained by God? That seems absurd. People predict things that turn out to be true all the time. Pro has not tied a coherent case together. ConclusionPro has not shown that everything that begins to exist has a cause. He has also not shown that the universe began to exist. He also lists random Bible stories and facts (shady facts at that) about heavenly bodies and calls them coincidences, when they are not major coincidences at all. Even if they were coincidences, why can only God explain them? Pro hasn't even come close to meeting his burden of proof. Sources[1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] . http://web.mit.edu... [3] . http://commonsenseatheism.com...