The KCA is a Sound Argument

I will now go ahead and begin my opening argument down here below. The KCA goes something like this[1]: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Premise 1: Metaphysics proves that something can’t come from nothing. If something can come from nothing, then why don’t we see this happening all the time in reality? If nothing can produce something, then that also means that there can be no potentiality since there is no a priori. In reality and the world we live in, we experience things that begin to exist have causes. There is always some sort of purpose for something that comes into existence. Premise 2: This one is very much agreed upon by philosophers and cosmologists. One argument is from induction. Using the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that in any closed system the entropy of the system will either remain constant or increase, in the nineteenth and 20th century, scientist had begun applying this law to the entire Universe. Their conclusion was that if you gave the Universe enough time it would eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer heat death. The problem with this conclusion is that it raises a question and that is: If the Universe is eternal, then why has it not yet experienced heat death? Astrophysical evidence confirms that the Universe will expand forever, and in the process of expansion, it will grow cold and dark and dead. If in a finite amount of time the universe will achieve a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state, then why, if it has existed for infinite time, is it not now in a such a state? Cosmologists are now affirming what P. C. W. Davies said that “whether we like it or not we seemed forced to conclude that the universe's low entropy condition was simply "put in" as an initial condition at the moment of creation. ” The problem of free will[2]: If everything is uncaused and 100% “determined”, then that means only one future exists. But, then how come we have the choice to choose A or B? As Carl Ginet has said (1990, 103), “our freedom can only be the freedom to add to the given past; and if determinism holds, then there is only one way that the given—the actual—past can be “added to. ” If I can lie(A) or tell the truth(B), then how is absolute determinism true? There must be a limited free will, for me to choose A or B. Aristotle’s Four Causes[3][4]: Humean causes are events, and so are their effects. Typically, it is substances that have causes. Aristotle gives 4 of these. Material Cause: Out of what? This is where the physics come in. Efficient Cause: Through what? This is the type of cause of the kalam gets to. An agent is the only entity that could initiate or cease a series of cause and effect relationships. This is known as agent causation. Formal Cause: What form or essence? Final Cause: For what purpose? This is the teleological argument. The final cause of a natural object - a plant or an animal - is not a purpose, plan, or “intention. ” Rather, it is whatever lies at the end of the regular series of developmental changes that typical specimens of a given species undergo. The final cause need not be a purpose that someone has in mind. Ex: the telos or goal of an F is what embryonic, immature, or developing Fs are all tending to grow into. The telos or goal f a developing tiger is to be a tiger. Aristotle says, things in nature happen “always or for the most part” –Ergo, God must be the reason for how a purpose develops. Premise 3: Logically follows from Premise (1) and (2), and uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who the universe is beginning-less, changeless, immaterial, timeless, space-less, and all powerful. I now turn it over to Con:) Sources: [1] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [2] . http://physics.about.com... [3] . http://sententias.org... [4]. http://plato.stanford.edu...