The Kalam Cosmological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

Con has failed in his opening round to present a clear, seperate, and independent argument, as expecte per rule 1 of the debate. Further, he has violated rule 3 of the debate by partcipating in rebuttal of round 1 during round 1. As such, I expect him NOT to speak to this section, unless requesting additional citation, or to question items marked with a superscript 1 (¹), and I expect him to do so only AFTER satisfying his burden of proof. Abbreviated Counter-RebuttalPlease be aware that the below numbered groups have a 1:1 correspondance with sections of numbered points in CON's initial argument, except for Group D, where specific quotes have been supplied. Group 1"[PRO] uses the example of energy conservation in an attempt to find something which began to exist without any prior cause..." (Strawman¹). Straw man argument The original sub-argument was a conjunctive: (A OR B) AND C. Point C is merely the existence of the problem of induction such that... The KCA assumes all things have beginnings through what is an induction. Inductions require observations. No observations of absolute beginnings of have been made, virtual particles notwithstanding. Therefore there is no way to induct Standard KCA P1 (hence SP1). Therefore SP1 is at best pure assumption, and at worst provably wrong. Shifting BOP (Equivocation, Straw Man, Begging the Question¹). CON has shifted the BOP on SP1, in claiming “If Pro wants to claim that ... thing which began is ... the form [of] the universe ... this current form must still have a cause.” This is assuming SP1, which he has yet to provide support for. See Section II part A. Group 2"Pro brings up the spontaneous generation of particles in Quantum Physics an example of something beginning to exist without a cause..." Conflation, Unreliable Source Here CON has conflated form and cause. While there may be a vast sea of energy, he still must establish that there is a cause to the perturbations of it to establish SP1. His reference here is 62 years old and is therefore unreliable¹. Equivocation, Hasty Generalization CON makes an equivocation between apparent beginnings and absolute beginnings. Gravity is a different class of phenomena from quantum fluctuation. Gravity has consistent action. IF there are two things, THEN those two things distort space and fall towards each other. However there is no IF which can possibly explain the random activity of quantum fluctuation. There's just a whole lot of THEN. Conflation, Shifting BOP Here again CON conflates form and cause. That the quantum fluctuations happen in the quantum field does not mean they are caused by that field; the field is merely a place. CON has already conceded that he must satisfy the BOP for SP1. See section II part B. Group 3"Pro goes on to argue that the Big Bang isn"t the beginning of the universe, only the beginning of real time..." Unreliable Source CON's source is 38 years old¹, in direct conflict with [5] (see round 2) and is further discredited/disproved in [6]. Shifting BOP CON has already conceded that he must satisfy the BOP for the positive claim that all things which begin to exist must have causes. Unreliable source Quentin smith is a philosopher, NOT a physicist, and is further contradicted by [5], particularly in Hawking's explanation of the difference between “real time” and “imaginary time” in physics¹. CON's concluding claims CON's objections to identity CON has failed, here, to understand what an identity is. An identity is not a thing, an identity is a pattern. Things do not create identities, they merely conform to them. In fact, the current organization of the particles that were once Abraham Lincoln is a characteristic part of the identity of Abraham Lincoln. Further, the stuff IN the universe is a part of the identity OF the universe; it is an aspect of the pattern which defines it¹. “the universe began because we have astronomical evidence to prove it” Without data, this is nothing but a bald assertion, to which CON has accepted BOP. “[T]he cause... must... exist atemporally and non-spatially...” This isn't metaphysically true; it just means that any possible cause must at least have a time dimension perpendicular to our own, or different rules governing its space and time. Without this, the rest of CON's statements on the subject have no validity. While there are additional untrue assertions further down, they need not be addressed as to even get there, CON must assume as above¹. Refutation of CON's initial argumentsIn his initial arguments, he brought up two initial points which merit further discussion, as they are valid, and imply a rightful BOP for myself. “Common sense dictates if that before the Big Bang the energy was always in one form, it would have remained so as long as it was undisturbed.” This might be true, if not for virtual particles or probability wave collapse or "Imaginary Time". Essentially, we have observed uncaused events which disturb the universe, regardless of form. On the scale of a singularity, quantum fluctuation constitutes disturbance, especially if those disturbances happen along a different time dimension. In other emerging theories of cosmology, it is proposed that the “universe” we are in exists in a much higher-dimensional space-time, and that “the singularity” is itself something different, and that the process is initiated by the collision of membranes in this higher dimensional space-time [6]. In this model of cosmology, no such disturbance is needed. “Why don"t people, televisions, and Eskimo villages pop into being uncaused out of nothing...?” The reason that we do not see such things happening (spontaneous large objects appearing) is due to the nature of randomness and the nature of the things which are popping into and out of existence. Virtual particles are very small, and the space occupied by the things described in the quote are very large (even if we're just talking about a piece of sand). It takes a LOT of particles to make any sizable “thing”, and due to the random nature of their appearance, the appearance of enough particles at the right place and the right time for them to spontaneously produce even a single piece of sand is so unlikely to occur in concert that such an event probably won't happen over the entire lifetime of the universe within the observable region of the universe, let alone on earth in just the right place and time for it to be observed. Of course the above statistical claim is further bolstered by the proposed possibility that virtual particles MAY (we do not yet know one way or the other) pop into existence along with their antiparticles, which would then be the reason they cease to exist. If this is the case, then even IF the grain of sand popped into existence, it would pop right back out again, as if it had never been there, and the chain reaction necessary for a grain of sand to result from such activity may not even be possible. Additional ArgumentsAs CON has failed to provide any of his BOP, nor has he eroded any leg of my argument, I will not be offering any additional arguments at this time; his entire first round has been entirely refuted. ¹ If con wishes to challenge these charges, he will have to waste his own character space on bringing them up again in round 3, preferably AFTER he has met his BOP, and I will answer them again in full in round 4.Bibliography:[6] Steinhardt, P. J., & Turok, N. (2007). Endless universe: Beyond the Big Bang. New York: Doubleday.Copyright (C) 2012 Andrew KathanPermission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation A copy of the license is available at http://www.gnu.org......