The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence

Con has come up with an. .. interesting response to the KCA. However, his argument has a fatal flaw: InVinoVeritas does not understand the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I am not intending this as an attack. Most in the New Atheist movement either don't understand the argument or deliberately misrepresent it. I would hope this could be a learning opportunity for Con. He may still not be convinced by the argument after the debate is finished, but I would hope he at least would be able to come up with a better rebuttal of the argument. The reality is that none of Con's objections are legitimate objections to the KCA. Objection I -- What Caused God? This is actually an attempt to strawman the argument. No proponent of any version of the Cosmological Argument has ever made the argument that God had a cause. It is irrelevant to the KCA. It's a red herring. The KCA does not state that everything had a cause, just that everything that begins to exist had a cause. Theologian Edward Feser has this to say on the subject: "The cosmological argument in its historically most influential versions is not concerned to show that there is a cause of things which just happens not to have a cause. It is not interested in 'brute facts' – if it were, then yes, positing the world as the ultimate brute fact might arguably be as defensible as taking God to be. On the contrary, the cosmological argument – again, at least as its most prominent defenders (Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, et al. ) present it – is concerned with trying to show that not everything can be a 'brute fact. ' What it seeks to show is that if there is to be an ultimate explanation of things, then there must be a cause of everything else which not only happens to exist, but which could not even in principle have failed to exist. And that is why it is said to be uncaused – not because it is an arbitrary exception to a general rule, not because it merely happens to be uncaused, but rather because it is not the sort of thing that can even in principle be said to have had a cause, precisely because it could not even in principle have failed to exist in the first place. And the argument doesn’t merely assume or stipulate that the first cause is like this; on the contrary, the whole point of the argument is to try to show that there must be something like this. " [1]Con's assertion that ". .. theists do not justify the fact that God is the only member of the 'does not exist' group" is simply false. Every proponent of the Cosmological Argument makes a case for why God is eternal. The universe obviously is not eternal. The Second Law of Thermodynamics affirms that the universe is running out of usable energy and, hence, cannot be eternal. We also see that the universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. [2] As we see the universe is expanding more and more rapidly, and the universe is running out of usable energy, the universe will inevitably run out of usable energy and result in a "heat death. " As the universe is expanding and not static, we can see that the universe, indeed, had a beginning as it is not eternal. The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. In order for the universe to have come about, especially from nothing, requires a cause of its existence. This cause must be outside itself. Something from within the universe could never have created the universe. It would have come from nothing just like the universe did. This cause must also have been eternal. God exists outside the universe, for only something outside the universe could have created it. God is also not bound by time for the same reason. Thomas Aquinas made the following argument for God's timelessness:1) God is simple (or immutable)2) If God is simple or immutable, then He is timeless3) Therefore, God is not temporal4) Therefore, God is timeless [3]God never changes and as such, we know that He is timeless. We can see the universe is not eternal because it is not static. It is expanding. This is only one of many arguments made for God being an Uncaused Being. Obviously it is intellecutally dishonest to assert that no theologian has ever argued for God not having been created. Objection II -- Fallacy of composition? Next, Con asserts that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition. It does not. For one thing, no fallacy is always a fallacy (or at least, with most fallacies there are examples that seem to commit the fallacy, but in reality don't if it can actually be justified that the argument is sound). Consider this argument:1) This wall is make of bricks.2) Every brick in the wall is red.3) Therefore, the brick wall is red. This does not commit the fallacy of composition. Nor does the KCA commit the fallacy of composition. It is simply a fact of nature that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Why is it, then, that universes can come into existence from nothing without a cause, but people, cars, and trees all need causes of their existence? This claim commits the fallacy of special pleading. Objection III -- Quantum mechanicsQuantum mechanics cannot be used to disprove the KCA. There are many different interpretations of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation is only one of many interpretations, many of which are indeterministic, and there is no reason to assume this one is correct over any other interpretation. Con's assertion that radioactive decay is bizarre. Radioactive decay results from a loss of energy by an unstable atom by emitting ionizing particles. [4] An unstable atom emits ionizing particles, which results in radioactive decay. This is cause and effect. Regarding photon loss of an excited atom, it may be true that scientists don't currently understand why excited atoms spontaneously lose photons, but this doesn't mean there isn't a cause. To assume there is no cause is an argument from ignorance. In fact, the reason we have scientific fields is to learn why the universe is the way it is, and why it acts the way it does. Something that is unanswered now may be answered in fifty years. Con hasn't actually offered one legitimate objection to the KCA, so it stands as a sound argument. I look forward to our next round. [1] . http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...[2] . http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;[3] Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologica, 1a. 10. 3. [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;