The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

I will present my argument this round and leave my last round as Pro asked. I will offer a basic standard of my argument and allow Pro to address it. The Kalam Cosmological argument has a basic argument with two subsets. In full it is as follows: KCA The Basic Argument 1. Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. i. e. , the temporal regress of events is finite. 2. Therefore, the universe has a cause. [1] First Sub-set Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite: 1. An actual infinite cannot exist. 2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. This first sub-set is that an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world and an infinite temporal series is such an actual infinite. Second Sub-set Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition: 1. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. 2. The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 3. Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. [2] The second sub-set is that a temporal series cannot be an actual infinite a temporal series is a collection formed by successive addition and a collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. PREMISES The KCA stands as a valid argument formed in logic called Modus Ponens. This is also known as "affirming the antecedent" or "the law of detachment". [3] Modus ponens, as a valid argument form, serves as the basic conditional elimination rule (→E), one of the basic rules of inference, and may be labeled as such where appropriate. That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. 1. "Whatever begins to exist requires a cause" If Pro denies this premise, then he denies a fundamental law of natural science. 2. "The universe began to exist" The universe came into being. If Pro denies this he denies the state of modern cosmology. Sufficient Reason The first premise in the KCA is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. [4] The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a principle that everything must have a reason for coming into existence. It is reasonable to accept this premise as true because we do not see things coming into existence without reason. Therefore we have cause to believe that the universe had a cause for its beginning. [5] The second premise from the metaphysical Principle Ex Nihilo Fit,[6] we see that the universe could not come from nothing. Even if the universe has always existed, that still does not contradict the universe had a original beginning. The theory of the Big-Bang[7] is just one theory that shows the universe could of had a beginning. These premises are strongly supported by our intuition and our experience. Temporal regress If we assume that the world has no beginning in time, then every single moment a eternity could have passed. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact that it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world-series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence. [7] CAUSE Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of our space. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things only exist in space. Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time. And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang. [8] If we go searching for the agency that is beyond our space and time as being responsible for the universe, then all our human analysis from one culture to the next shows us similar properties which are only possessed by a supernatural cause. This cause can go beyond space and time. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused. Ockham's Razor[9] will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause. [10] PERSONNEL CAUSE From all the analysis, we can conclude that this transcendent cause is to be taken personal. There are two types of causal explanation, scientific explanations in laws and conditions and personal explanations. [11] The first state of the universe cannot and does not have a scientific explanation, therefore it can only be accounted for by personal explanation. [12] Therefore we can conclude that the KCA is sound by agreeing with fundemental laws and having a explanation for the personnel cause outside of the universe. References [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://www.philosophy-index.com... [4] . http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] . http://stripe.colorado.edu... [6] . http://www9.georgetown.edu... [7] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] . http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu... [9] . http://winteryknight.wordpress.com... [10] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor [11] . http://www.leaderu.com... [12] . http://www.shef.ac.uk... [13] Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 32-48.