The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.

In order to judge this debate, we must answer one question: Were Pro’s arguments, on balance, more convincing than Con’s? If not, Pro loses the debate. Considering the misunderstandings of physics underlying Pro’s arguments, as well as a litany of poor arguments made by Pro throughout the debate, arguments must go to Con. Pro’s new argument, which holds I violate my own standards for the debate, is plainly false. Let’s analyze this contention in context. Pro, in the beginning of the debate, argued that the “law of causality” is absolutely necessary to the practice of science, justifying the premise that ‘Everything which begins to exist has a cause”. In other words, it’s not even possible for science to work without the notion of causality, so the causal principle must be true. I provided one empirical example of a scientific theory (Hartle-Hawking) which does not make use of causality. If this theory is even possibly true, then it is also possible for science to work without causality. Thus, the possibility of the theory I mentioned undercuts Pro’s contention that causality is necessary for science. When Pro quotes me as writing that the plausibility of the theory is not of interest, he interprets this as an admission that my arguments are just possibilities and therefore inferior to his argument, which claims the necessity of causality over the possibility of acausality. Pro is clearly missing the relationship between possibility and necessity here. In respect to Pro’s defense of P1, which argues the truth of P1 via the necessity of causality in the practice of science, possibility is all I need to prove in order to shut down Pro’s argument. If somebody says “It is necessary that all human beings are males”, I only need to illustrate the possibility that any given human being could be a female in order to disprove their idea. Pro chastises my argument as being “only a possibility”, but unfortunately, he overlooks the importance of that fact in relation to the strength of his argument. Since Pro barely addressed my responses to his points about the possibility of my proposals, Pro loses this area, and thus, the argument from the necessity of causality falls apart. (As a note, Pro states that I argued that causality does not apply at the quantum scale, so the universe can begin to exist uncaused at the quantum level, , but in the quote he referred to, I was talking about a quantum gravity model where the universe doesn’t have a cause, not the suggestion that the universe can emerge uncaused at the quantum level. ) Pro argued that the Big Bang theory provides scientific proof our universe had a beginning. I countered this by pointing out that general relativity is an incomplete model of the universe’s beginning. Pro responded by distinguishing between relativity and the Big Bang, but subsequently, I showed how the Big Bang theory has relativity at its foundation. Pro ignored my counterargument in one round and proceeded to repeat himself in the final round without addressing my criticisms. For this reason, I believe I won this aspect of our debate, refuting Pro’s first defense of his second premise. Similarly, because Pro did not riposte my ideas about thermodynamics, Pro loses this point as well. As a result, we effectively have no reasons from Pro to believe the universe had a beginning, leaving his burden of proof unfulfilled. Succinctly, Pro dropped too many arguments and made too many bad ones to be considered the winner of the debate.