I was interviewed by a world religions class student

[The Grand Nudger]

Take a look at the causal inference in the transposition, whereby...a report in the paper -tommorrow- seems to have some effect on whether or not a ship crashes -tonight-.  It's all on the up and up, of course, textbook even.  Has it ever been the case, in your experience, that some event "x" tommorrow was the cause of some outcome "y" today?

Nevertheless, armed with this valid form, loaded up with sound propositions - have you abandoned your belief in asymmetric time and cause?

Well... first, I don't think that a newspaper report has causal sufficiency to crash a ship (at least not directly, perhaps as a secondary cause through misinformation).

It doesn't matter what you think, impeach the validity of the form or the sound nature of the propositions.  

Secondly, I was say that your transposition is a demonstration of the principle of causality in making an inference, not a causal force.  Lastly, a lack of a report in the newspaper does not necessarily mean that a ship has not crashed.

It's a demonstration of our logic's difficulties in handling causal inference.  Your first cause argument is a claim regarding causal inference.  I just wanted you to see one of the most extreme examples of how that system buckles under those types of propositions.  I offered you an example of how following the rules -to the letter- can lead us to a conclusion which the mind immediately reels against.  If you feel that your first cause argument is a compelling reason to believe in god, or that the argument in and of itself is compelling as to some first cause, you should believe that this ship in the night argument is a good reason to believe in symmetric time and cause.  

I don't, personally, believe that the papers report causes the shipwreck myself - no more than you do....but the rules of our system tell us that it does.  One mans MT is another mans MP, or not...lol...but that would be troubling, since that would mean we have the rules wrong......  If, however, we have those rules wrong, what reason do you have to believe in the truth of -any- logical statement, including Kalam?

So, as of yet, I don't think I'm ready to rid myself of asymmetric time and cause.

Then a valid argument with sound propositions is not enough to compel you, and thusly I seriously doubt that you have been compelled by Kalam.  It seems more likely to me, given your refusal to accept what is valid and sound as true, that the first cause argument is just a front for your beliefs, which are in no way affected by that argument.