The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

P1: whatever begins to exist has cause of its existence. My opponent argues that the beginning and causation and the specific modes are ultimately irrelevant since he claims that he is making the claim that it is universal than necessarily limiting. But that's not the point here- if I were to hold that nothing was created (and the preponderance of evidence suggests things are not created ex nihilo caused or otherwise), then the latter option would be meaningless. It's a question of knowledge of whether things that begin to exist have causes or not, and to support the premise one mustn't simply appeal to the notion of "well if it's not true then why don't we see things popping into existence? " since if nothing does begin to exist in such an absolute manner, caused or not, then how could anything pop into existence? My opponent charges me with a naturalistic bias, but it seems he's simply appealing to the abstract to escape from the problem of actually supporting his premise. Just as we have no evidence of anything popping into existence un-caused, we have no evidence nor do we have reason to suppose anything was ever created. In fact, the First Law of Thermodynamics explicitly deny this is even possible. Furthermore, my opponent attempts to downplay the point of the heisenberg uncertainty principle and of the quantum fluctuation to make it seem as if this does not point against an acausal (but ex materia) beginning. P2: The universe began to exist. On actual infinite:My opponent argues that though infinity, an abstract mathematical concept cannot due to its nature be applicable to the real world. However, he hasn't demonstrated this. If he accepts that the quizzical nature of infinity is logically viable then how would showing examples using it somehow disqualify it? If it is indeed impossible, he'd have to actually show the contradiction not simply highlighting the quirky nature of infinity. This is what Hilbert's Hotel paradox showed. It didn't show the impossibility of actual infinity, but its strange nature. Vilenkin:My opponent cites a group effort by Borde, Guth and Vilenkim himself to refute the quantum nucleation that Vilenkin had published in 1982, in which it states essentially that the past-eternal universe is impossible. But that's not exactly a problem here, since the two papers aren't in conflict at all. To begin with, the BVG theorem doesn't state the beginning of the universe as my opening satement presents, but the universe as spacetime. As I've pointed out, and as is currently understood in physics, time is a dimension that is composed of the universe. In short, what the BVG is pointing out is that the inflation of the universe is past-incomplete. In fact, one could further state that the BVG describes the point right up to where the 1982 paper begins. They are two sides- the 1982 paper shows what happened at the "ultimate origins". This is supported by the paper itself which states: "What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. "[1]P4: All eternal causes of temporal effects must be temporalMy opponent claims I'm but confused with regards to "will" of a personal agent. But his description shows I am not and that in fact he has highlighted the problem of a timeless mind. Thinking is a temporal process, and so is the formation of will. As I've highlighted in the previous round, he is left with a condundrum: either the mind timelessly always possessed the will to create a universe in which case it effectively does not have a beginning since it must have existed alongside the creator since there's no time to separate them. Otherwise, the mind must necessarily be temporal and it formed the universe some time ago. Though the ability is itself outside of time since the ability is not in action, the thinking process itself and of forming wills is. To form thoughts is to effectively go from an antecedent of "before the existence of a thought" to "the thought now existing". Conclusion:Ultimately however, in my alternate position which is supported by many current pre-planck cosmology, is that time is a dimension- a product of the universe. Because of this, even if spacetime were to begin, it does not constitute that the universe as outlined in my opening statement must've begun. Its "process" is effectively "timeless" since it does not take place in the temporal dimension. My opponent already agreed that time is not a necessary component to existence, and thus my point stands. The KCA faces a problem with the said beginnings, and of the universe and hence it has not been able to demonstrate its point.