The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

Objections to premise 1 Your first objection is one which on the surface holds ground. However, if one realises that it only shifts what is uncaused to the process.As a quick overview of Quantum mechanics, one of the three things must be true in a theory (meaning, we've narrowed it down to the answer being one of the following):1 - Your consciousness affects the behaviour of subatomic particles [regards specifically "collapse" doesn't occur]2 - Particles move backwards as well as forwards in time and appear in all possible places at once3 - The universe is interconnected with faster-than-light transfers of informationThe third one is true in Bohm's theory, which means, quite simply, that there is a law in place in the universe - a mathematical law. If Bohm's theory is true, or the larger (and more popular ideas) of Pilot Wave, Hidden Variable or Intricate law theories, it mandatorily requires (as proven by Bell) nonlocalities - particles that can move faster than the speed of light, which are becoming increasinlgy likely due to CERN's research - and either Bell's local realism to be correct (which would create a rather large amount of problems, specifically the contradictions with the results of experiments validating parts of Quantum Theory) or spontaeneous creation of faster-than-light particles. Also, my opponent then supposed I put forth the CI (Copenhagen Interpretation) of Quantum Physics. This is not the case: It could be MWI (many worlds interpretation), Consistent Histories, Pilot Waves, Time Reversibility, Transactional Interpretation, or even magical wizards using three objects of power to keep the world under control. It is a strange - but popular - argument nowadays to talk about Quantum Physics in an attempt to talk 'over' your opponent, and forgive me if I have done this, but simply Copenhagen Interpretation does not inherently stipulate this hypothesis (of course, some people who promote it may believe there is a sea of fluctuating energy, but that is not a major idea. It's ironically an idea of do the maths, then don't look, or my favourite quote - "Calculate, then shut up". It's extremely conservative and modest with its postulation.However, as the motion was to prove that God exists, as there is a possibility (if not a certainty) that particles come from nothing, then the certainty of God's existence is at the very least uncertain.Also, my opponent has misread my subpoint b (I apologise if this was due to lack of clarity). I mean nothing as an antonym to something. I mean it not as in nothing happened, but as in black allows nothing through it. Nothings and nothingness is my meaning. A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality. The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity. Objections to premise 2: ...There was time before the Big Bang. Some will argue that we do not know, or that we are not certain[1], others that we have a rough idea which is good enough[2], some even argue that the Big Bang was simply the transformation from a previous state[3], but I would argue to some degree that time before the Big Bang is the most probable. Matter before the Big Bang is a certainty (it is inherently required in the Big Bang theory).Objections to Conclusion:This alone should show how the KCA does not prove God's existence. It does not fulfil the basic requirements of God. It can be made by an evil bastard intent on screwing everyone over[4]. It could be made by a God who is, to paraphrase Neitsche, dead. A personal creator means it could be Gepetto, Hitler, or even a thirteen year old kid with a paintball rifle. His conclusion simply strengthens my point: It proves nothing like God. It closer proves that the Queen is a reptile.1 - http://www.universetoday.com...;2 - http://members.fortunecity.com...3 - http://www.scientificamerican.com...;4 - http://img2.ranker.com...