The Kalam Cosmological Argument

In my view Pro has not given adequate justification for their premises, too much assumptions, not enough warrant for the actual premises. P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Lets talk metaphysics)Consider Pros premises "What ever begins to exist has a cause". Before I even begin analyzing the justification for that premise I need to bring to attention what that premise is making a claim on. The premises is not some absolute rule concerning atoms, or even our entire universe, rather it's a claim on the metaphysical, that is to say whether there exists God, Gods, angels, demons, a multi verse, we are all living in a computer simulation by entities which themselves live in a simulation etc etc this premise imposes on it's self as an absolute rule for all time, ever where, in and beyond our universe. .. .. .. .. .. .. NO EXCEPTIONS. And we are going to need more than just some assumptions to justify such an all inclusive, absolute claim. Wes Morriston counters against justifying such a claim of what happens in our universe and extrapolating that to an absolute metaphysical rule. .. "I quite agree that a tiger couldnt spring into existence uncaused. But we have been given no reason to think that what"s true of a tiger applies to physical reality as a whole. Remember that we"re talking about the origin of the whole natural order here. A tiger comes into existence within the natural order, and within that order it is indeed impossible for things like tigers just to pop into existence. But as far as I can see, there is no comparable context for the origin of physical reality as a whole, and no analogous reason for thinking that it could not have begun to exist uncaused [1](Pros Assumption 1: Something cannot create itself)Well why not ? is there a reason ? or are you just assuming that ? In any case even accepting this assumption doesn't justify P1, since if something began to exist without a cause, it didn't create it's self and thus doesn't violation this rule. (Pros Assumption 2: Nothing cannot create something)It is imagined that if you had a state of nothing and only nothing, then that state would remain the same forever and there would never be any change to the state of affairs. Wes Morriston points out. .. " What we are talking about here, after all, is nothing at all - "no matter, no energy,no space, no time, no deity. " And nothing at all has no power at all, not even the power to prevent things from existing. One wants to ask Craig, "If there were nothing at all, what would make it true that nothing could come into existence? " [2]Pros assumption here even if granted only justifies that nothing can't create something, not necessarily that nothing acts as a restriction that something else could begin to exist without a cause. What are the rules for determining metaphysically possibilities/impossibles ? Consider just some of the claims metaphysical claims that Pros arguments needs in order to work. .. .1) What ever begins to exist has a cause/that is to say metaphysically impossible for something to begin to exist without a cause2) The cause of the universe is timeless & immaterial/that is to say it is metaphysically possible for a timeless, immaterial cause to give rise to a temporal and material effect. Now consider the following metaphysical propositions. .. .. ..1) Not all things that begin to exist, necessarily, have to have a cause.2) All material effects have a material cause.3) In a state absent of time, something can be it's own cause.4) A cause must exist in temporal relations to it's effect/that is to say no such thing as a timeless cause. Accepting any of these metaphysical claims would directly contradict Pros argument. What should we use to determine whether such metaphysical claims are true or false ? are there any rules one must adhere to ? or are we all just making them up as go along to suit our agendas ? Hint. .. .. .. .. I think it's the agenda thing. I invite Pro to share with us such a methodology that he thinks we should use, absent of such a methodology we are just accepting or rejecting such metaphysical claims at our own pleasure, and is that really a solid basis for accepting the Kalam argument & it's questionable metaphysics it is based on ? I think not. The universe did not begin to existWhat does it mean to say that something "began" to exist ? Consider Pro, yourself and DDO. These things exist, but we would also agree that these things "began" to exist, but why is that ? I argue that's because we recognise that although these things exist, there was also a point in the past where such things did not exist. This can be formulated as follows. .. .. .. X began to exist, if and only if X exists, and there was a time in the past where X did not exist. There is no point in time where the universe did not exist, this is still the case if the universe is billions of years old/has a finite past, as there is no time before the existence of the universe and thus no "prior" state in which the universe did not exist.1) X began to exist, if and only if X exists, and there was a time in the past where X did not exist.2) There has never been a time in the past where the universe did not existC) Therefore the universe did not "began" to exist. This directly contradicts Pros second premise that states the universe began to exist. Kalam is incompatible with B theory of time" The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality. " (3) Compare and contrast this to A theory that states only the "now" exists, where the past and future relative to the "now" do not really exist. William Lane Craig a main advocate of Kalam states. .. " From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived" (4)Brian Green remarks. .. "Once we know that your now can be what I consider the past or your now can be what I consider the future and your now is just as equally valid as mine, then we learn that the past must be real, the future must be real. " & "Past, present, future all equally real. Any given individual can certainty speak of their past or their present or their future, the key realization of (Einstein's) relativity is that they are really only speaking for themselves. [5]Max Tegmark remarks. .. "there is nothing in the laws of physics that selects one now over any other now. " [5]I argue that B theory is more likely true than A theory and thus the Kalam Cosmological Argument as it rests upon A theory of time should rejected. I look forward to Pros response. Sources[1] . http://spot.colorado.edu...[2] . http://spot.colorado.edu...[3] . https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184[5] . https://youtu.be...