The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

"Con how is the burden of proof on me to prove something can't come from nothing?"Because it is a claim you made, and you have the burden of proof in this debate as per the rules. If you make a claim, you need evidence in this context."That is like proving there is no life on other planets."There probably is life on other planets. "Common sense experience shows that if you have nothing you will get nothing."No it doesn't. We have never examined "nothing" to do know whether not something can spring up from nothing or not. "Science requires observation and empirical evidence we can all see. How is your quantum fluctuations theory science?"It's science because quantum fluctuations have been verified by experiment. "The particles in quantum fluctuation could very well be coming from something as you admit, and that is more logically sound than."How is it more logically sound? Pro just makes claims without evidence. It is embarrassing for him. "The basis for my argument is Logic, and logic proves that something can't come from nothing."False. There is nothing illogical about something coming from nothing. "What you call science is not science it is only theory."Theories are science. This debate was a waste of time. "There is no proof anything can come from nothing."There is no proof that something cannot come from nothing either. I guess we are even."There is no proof that absolute nothingness exists in the first place also."I agree. I don't even believe the universe came from nothing anyway. My main beef is with the second premise. "Also I don't believe God created the universe out of nothing. I believe God is infinite intelligent energy and out of energy God created all matter."So you believe in creatio ex deo. "There is a lot of fine tuning in the universe and life so there has to be an intelligent designer."Pro has not proven that there is any fine-tuning. "The universe couldn't be infinitely old because if there was an infinite past there would be no now"Why wouldn't there be a "now"? Pro is just making baseless assertions. "it is like if I had to kill a duck but I had to ask the person behind me if I can kill it and he had to ask the person behind him, and on and on, if that was infinite I would never get the chance to kill the duck"This analogy assumes a starting point. If there was an infinite past, there would be no starting point. Thus, the above is a false-analogy. "What you are saying is only theory that Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krauss made up there is no proof absolute nothingness exists or that something can come from nothing. "No it is not, I never mentioned Hawking or Krauss once. Pro is creating a straw-man. "It is logically impossible and no one has demonstrated it to be true. Out of nothing only nothing comes it is as simple as that"Pro has not shown that it is logically impossible, he just says it is with no reason! ConclusionThis debate was a waste of time. Pro had the burden of proof and failed miserably. He did not even show A-Theory was true, and I showed the argument depended on A-Theory!Since Pro could not show that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and he could not show the universe began to exist; the resolution has not been affirmed. PS. Just a reminder to Pro that his next round must only consist of "No argument will be posted here as agreed", as per the rules.