The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Ave.AnswersQ1: The question isn't specific enough to answer effectively. If some experiment were conducted that conclusively shows that the universe came from an actual nothing, then I would see no reason as to why god needed to cause the universe to exist. Personally, I have no stake in twisting the evidence to support my belief in the existence of god. I don't believe in a god that answers prayers or performs miracles, and tries to guide my life. I just accept the conclusions that I think the evidence leads to.Q2: I just find it implausible that the laws of physics existed before the universe did. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have formed. How could the laws of physics that existed before be true every time? Imagine that the universe doesn't exist, and having a law that says 'Energy is neither conserved or destroyed'. But, the universe, once it begins to exist, could easily give rise to situations that contradict that.Q3: There is simply no reason to think that’s the case.Q4: I think I’m following the evidence where it leads. Like I said, my life would be the same if I thought god didn’t exist. I have no motivation to make up evidence to justify theism.Questions1: I think it’s important to clarify the purpose of my potentiality and property arguments. They are meant to show that, without god, there is no reason to think that something can come from nothing. When I say ‘’There is no way for the universe to have come from an absolute nothing’’ and ‘’It is impossible for the universe to have come from state of absolute nothingness.", I’m talking about a purely naturalistic framework. Those two arguments are meant to show that on atheism, there is no reason to think something can come from nothing. I’m not applying it to a theistic framework of how the universe began to exist. On a theistic framework, you have a plausible way of having creation ex nihilo. I think that this caused a lot of confusion during your last argument, because it seems as if I had contradicted myself. Have I sufficiently explained this discrepancy?2: Let's imagine that the Bohemian interpretation is false. What reason is there to consider the Copenhagen interpretation to be true, especially when Bell's inequalities have put them into dispute? It seems to me that you never showed the Copenhagen interpretation to be true despite the evidence I brought against it. You just decided to attack the Bohemian interpretation while never establishing the Copenhagen one.3: Yes, I never showed that the quantum fluctuations you talked about had a cause. That's because the idea that they don't have a cause is based upon an interpretation that I attacked before. Do you understand why I didn't try to show they had a cause?4: You accused me of making a tu quoque. I don't think that's an accurate criticism. The argument you gave said that because there are no metaphysical principles on nothing, nothing can come from something. I pointed out that the statement is a metaphysical principle in itself (there are no rules). I was showing that the argument is contradictory because stating that there are no metaphysical principles is establishing a metaphysical claim in and of itself. I was trying to argue that you were actually contradicting yourself. The claims about you being inconsistent comes with the realization that you think there's nothing nothing can't do, but there's something nothing can do. It was two prongs: the contradiction and the inconsistency. You only answered to the latter. Your thoughts/response?Vale.