Kalam Cosmological Argument

Premise 1 The vacuum is a sea of fluctuating particles, but if there were no fluctuations then it would be an inert void of empty space. I already quoted particle physicist Taner Edis, who explains this better than I: "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average. " - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [1]Basically, the quantum fluctuations occur in empty space, and it's the fluctuations themselves that are the energy. "Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist [2]It's the very nature of these quantum events, which have many physicists speculating that these quantum events had something to do with The Big Bang. Basically, the conservation of energy appears to be violated for short periods of time (but this is allowed by the Uncertainly Principle) due to the spontaneous creation of particle and anti-particle pairs. It seems, one would have to be blind to not see a connection with this and the The Big Bang and how our universe possibly arose. "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility" - Heinz Pagals. American Physicist, an adjunct Professor of Physics at Rockefeller University [2]So, can something "begin to exist" without a cause? Absolutely. There is absolutely no reason to accept the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. "Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. " - Quentin Persifor Smith. Americancontemporaryphilosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. [3] Now, my opponent accuses me of begging the question regarding the "metaphysical implications" of the Uncertainty Principle. Yes, the Uncertainty Principle speaks on our inability to predict certain things regarding quantum events, my point was this allows for acausal events to occur. I wasn't claiming that the Uncertainty Principle states that these particles are required to be uncaused, just that the Principle allows for this to happen, and this is what physicists believe does happen. For example, Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. That means that a given U238 nucleus could sit there, motionless and unchanging for billions of years with nothing changing in it's environment, and then all of a sudden it decays. What caused it to decay at that particular time after billions of years? Nothing, it was an uncaused event. "Pro suggests that an uncaused universe is the simplest explanation. However, preferring simple to complex explanations is a principle that only applies when all other circumstances are equal. If the Kalam argument succeeds, then other circumstances are not equal, for we have strong inductive reasons to think that the universe did have a cause. So by appealing to simplicity, Pro is again begging the question against the argument. "This is ironic, I'm being accused of begging the question, yet my opponent is begging the question against my reasons for why there most likely isn't a cause of The Big Bang (she just assumes her position is more superior, when in reality, it isn't). "A true nothing would lack, among everything else, geometry itself. "Nobody ever claimed the universe came from truly nothing in the first place though, the universe could have came from something which was indistinguishable from nothing, but not really nothing. I'm not sure why my opponent is so hell bent on the universe coming from absolutely nothing. "Unless by "geometry" Pro means something like "the underlying fabric of space-time," in which case he's appealing to something rather than nothing, and something that seems to be part of this universe rather than the metaphysical layer from which it sprang. "A mathematical geometry is what Alexander Vilenkin describes the universe came from (hypothetically), which contained no space, no time, and was governed by quantum laws. My opponent is assuming the laws of physics must only pertain to within the universe, however no major physicist that I've researched believes this is the case. "The state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe. " - Alexander Vilenkin [4] Premise 2"Again, unless "geometry" is a code word for something other than mathematical geometry, the only geometry possible in a timeless and spaceless model is a zero-dimensional, zero-time universe. But that describes the Big Bang singularity. " My opponent didn't even really attempt to explain why Alexander's model was incorrect, even though I explained it in my first round. Regardless, if there is no time and no space, then there is no need for it to have a cause (theists believe that since God is timeless and spaceless, and he doesn't have to have cause). The theist could claim that this geometry is absolutely nothing, but it isn't, and no physicist I have researched believes that this is the case. "Finally, my opponent has still failed to show why an infinite regress of moments is possible. He did say in his first statement that an infinite number of moments could have been traversed to reach the present. . "I never said such a thing, nothing I mentioned appealed to an infinite regress, I conceded a finite past. Stephen Hawking's no-boundary proposal and Alexander Vilenkin's models of cosmic origins both fit with Vilenkin, Guth, and Borde's paper demonstrating a finite past. Conclusion1) My opponent got carried away with the physics, and completely dodged my syllogism arguing in favor of the universe not requiring a cause, thus is stands. My opponent also completely ignored Grunbaum and Swinburne's argument for what it means to "begins to exist". 2) Untriggered, or uncaused events are allowed in physics, and there is no reason to accept P1 in the first place3) The universe could have actually began (which is likely), but models of the universe's "origin" work without causation and as far as Hawking's model goes, without a beginning even with a finite past (I wish I had more time to delve into Hawking's proposal). My opponent had the burden of proof. I believe she failed to meet it, and I suceeded to meet mine in undermining her claims. Sources[1] . http://atheism.about.com...[2] . http://www.infidels.org...[3] . http://www.secularhumanism.org...[4] . http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...