The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

Alright, let's get straight in otherwise character limits will start killing me. Science and the uncausedI shall restate my case for this point: there are things without efficient causes exist. The efficient cause is that which is the "primary source of change"[1]: the efficient cause of a statue is the artisan. Firstly, atoms do not have that efficient cause, due to the fact that "there is no cause to be known."[2]. My opponent states "it's the instability of [atoms that] causes the decay, right? I mean, it's not really uncaused", which a scientist responds "Right, but what's uncaused is that one atom will decay earlier and one will decay later...there is no cause to be known". Of course, maybe there is some hidden cause? The physicist replies: "It's not merely that we can't find any. It's that our theory shows there aren't any. The theory has been subjected to all sorts of experimental tests, and has passed with flying colours. Mainstream science accepts it nowadays". Thus, I have substantiated how things can lack an efficient cause, which concludes a problem with the first premise of the KCA, which collapses the argument.The material problemOK, let's go back in history. Aristotle is well known. He is doing his science. He is the first scientist, many suggest. His work showed that things in the natural world (which we get the law of causality from, that is, that things which being to exist have causes) have a cause, and that cause is split into multiple causes: the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final. The material cause is what something is made from. For example, a statue is made of marble. If the universe is made ex nihilo as my opponent states, then the universe lacks a material cause, so it cannot possibly fit the requirements to the law of causality. If it does not have a material cause, then the universe lacks a cause (in the same way that you cannot be three quarters pregnant, only 3/4 of the way along, you cannot have 3/4 of a cause, either a full cause or none at all). Thus, the conclusion is meeting contradiction: it can only be concluded that the universe cannot follow the law of causality. To make this another way, all things that follow the law of causality must come from a material. The universe does not come from some material. Therefore, the universe cannnot follow the law of causality.Kant, rationalism and empiricismMy opponent firstly does not address the analogy: he simply states that we know what caused the bus to stop. I suggest that only our current perspective is making us think the bus is being stopped by a driver. Without experience knowledge, we agree, one can come to wrong conclusions. However, with experience knowledge, one can similarly come to the same conclusion: in fact, in the analogy, one could constantly think that the bus is stopped by your hand going out. Stop the bus! My opponent needs to actually give reason why it is wrong to conclude that the cause of the bus stopping is your hand. He is simply claimed it is obvious, but if we critically think about this, from the view of someone who does not know how a bus works (similar to how we don't know how the universe works), can we honestly conclude the cause of the bus stopping? The rational answer is no.Reason based from experience?Reasoning occurs without experience: experience is not necessary. My opponent states that essentially geometry is learnt through visibilities: however, I suggest that geometry is learnt rationally. The intuitively derived facts are learnt through a priori reasoning. We see two things and a priori think they are the same. We see two lines and think a priori they are parallel. However, we don't need a priori experience of a shape to know it: I have never seen a 934 sided shape (or something like a Nonaitetracontagon), but I know what they are. I have never experienced i (√-1) but I can calculate with it. I have never experienced the billionth term of 3x2-2x-1+1, but I can calculate it. A priori pure can allow us to use logic and mathematics. A posteriori does not allow us anything. And ironically, intuition is a priori and part of rationalism, not empiricism.Hume and EmpiricismMy opponent brings forth an interesting dilemma about what causes the bus to stop: even if we misconstrue why the bus stops, then we still know the bus has a cause. I reject this on two grounds. Firstly, if we've misconstrued the reason of why the bus stopped, then we've got a serious issue: remember the conclusion to a God being that it must be personal and transcendent and the omni-qualities? We have to dismiss these! How, I ask, can we state the qualities of the causer, when we don't know what the causer is? I mean, the bus driver has two hands and two legs. My arm over the road is an arm. Doesn't have two arms or two legs. The bus driver is rational and (hopefully!) can see. My arm cannot. The causer's qualities cannot be known, and, thus, we cannot conclude a God.Secondly, I shall use a new analogy to make a clearer case. Imagine if there is a horse race and a dozen are running. My opponent suggests that, at the end of the race, one of the horses wins. This is put forth by William Rowe: "We know that although no horse in a given horse race necessarily will be the winner, it is, nevertheless, necessary that some horse in the race will be the winner"[3]. Firstly, this causes the problem previously mentioned: what are the characteristics of the horse? Second, it is possible that all the horses break a leg and none finishes the race. The point is, there is no reason to state that there has to be a cause of the choices: there can still be none. Fallacy of CompositionThe fallacy of composition still stands. My opponent has given no reason to actually suggest that 1+1=2 outside the universe. There is no reason that the laws of the universe exist outside our universe: in fact, there's every reason to not make that supposition: the fact that these are laws that inhabit the universe. Extrapolating them outside the universe requires a "leap of faith", so to speak. My opponent has not stated why this "leap of faith" is justified. Thus, I can reject this leap for the reason that it is unjustified.As an aside, 1+1=2 outside the universe due to "1+1=2" is using artificial a priori reasoning that is only affected by our mind, not our setting.As I have some spare characters, I am going to make a new argument, as it is only round 3. Kant and CosmologyKant's criticism of the Kalam argument is the final argument I shall bring up to critique the argument. It works, actually, from criticising the argument as a whole. The argument itself is fundamentally flawed for a simple reason: it works from the empirical to the non-empirical. Take the following argument:P1 - All bachelors are menP2 - John is a manC1 - Therefore, John is a bachelor.The argument is one which is ontological: it is a semantic argument. It starts from definitions, and ends with definitions. The kalam argument, however, works from the empirical evidence (if we ignore all other criticisms) to a non-empirical one (that God exists). The reason that this is problematic is that we are trying to move outside our ability to know things. The conclusion itself is outside of the boundaries of what we know and can observe: thus, an argument trying to propose it is going past the borders of what can be known. Our knowledge is limited to what we can know, and what exists inside spacetime and the logic which exists within it. The argument attempts to use logic which is inside the universe to prove that which is outside it. This assumes that the rules are the same: an unjustified extrapolation. Thus, it is reasonable to reject the argument.For those reasons provided, I hold the resolution negated. I await my opponent to post another equally stimulating response.1 - Physics, Aristotle 2 - Philosophical Consersations Robert M. Martin, page 215 [http://tinyurl.com...]3 - The Cosmological Argument, William Rowe