The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Premise 1 Pro appeals to deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics. He falsely claimed the Copenhagen interpretation is widely abandoned. This couldn't be further from the truth. Your source doesn't say this either. The most accepted interpretation is the Copenhagen, then the many worlds (which does not help the conclusion of the Kalam at all ) [1]. My point in mentioning these particles is the fact that our current understanding of physics allows for such a thing is a blow to the first premise. If P1 was true, no interpretation should allow for such thing. These deterministic interpretations have serious flaws which is why they're unpopular. Victor Stenger points out. " Now, there is a version of quantum mechanics, proposed by physicist David Bohm in the 1950s, in which quantum events do happen deterministically. Bohm dubbed this the "ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics." It is also known as the hidden variables theory. Although deterministic in principle, the theory itself does no better than the other versions of quantum mechanics in being able to predict only the probability of an event and not the actual outcome in every case. If one associates determinism with predictability, then Bohmian quantum mechanics is not deterministic. Furthermore, the theory requires instantaneous connections across the universe that violate Lorentz invariance, and this fact alone has made it unpopular among most physicists and philosophers. None of the interpretations of quantum mechanics provides a model that makes predictions for individual events in all cases. "[2]. Pro quotes wikipedia that says these vacuums aren't empty. However my argument here is that these particles are uncaused, not that they appear in nothing. Pro has wikipedia as a source, while I have Harvard. Which is more reliable? Furthermore it actually says these vacuums contain particles that pop in and out. So his own source doesn't agree with him. Much ado about nothing.....literally Pro attacks my argument. However it's undermined since if something could come from nothing it would be because it lacks a property. His objection is all based on a tu quoque fallacy. He says the argument can work both ways (it cannot) and says this is grounds for rejecting it. This is the fallacious tu quoque. In the second argument, He states "... my property argument makes no sense because the fact that something cannot come from nothing is a property of nothing. That's exactly the point I was trying to make!" This would mean your argument is self refuting. Your conclusion was that something cannot come from nothing, not that nothing was incoherent. This means Pro committed the moving goal post fallacy. Something Pro never responded to was if something can come from nothing, it would be because it lacks a limitation (property). Pro moves the goal post again in saying the universe cannot be uncaused from nothing. "I never said that the universe couldn't have come from nothing." However Pro said numerous times in R2 "There is no way for something that exists to come from a state of absolute nothingness" "Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have come from state of absolute nothingness." In fact in the last round he said nothing could not exist " There is no such thing as an absolute nothingness. Therefore, something cannot come from ir(sic)..." Inserting a being gets us no where. Pro believes God is the cause in a personal way. God would not be a cause in the sense that he was an actual physical thing acting, but the one controlling it. The arguments presented were not in support of something coming from nothing while being controlled, but that something cannot come from nothing in general. Why a God? Pro parodies these scientific theories with a simplistic fallacious false analogy. Gravity was just used to determine what the total energy of the universe was. Because if the total energy was zero, the model stands, since it relates to a possible origin. Pro would have to prove the total sum of money being zero relates to its origin of nothing. I certainly hope Pro understands that energy and money affect totally different parts of reality. Pro quotes Craig in saying quantum tunneling must have laws with it. Craig never said or proved quantum tunneling has a cause or that this model is false. His argument assumes that the law are a product of the universe and not the other way around. No reason is given to support this. This also seems to move the goal post. We're talking about the origin of the universe, so why the question of where the laws came from? By natural, I mean something not supernatural. Pro committed a straw man fallacy when talking about the Chroma. I never said it was a being. I have no idea where Pro got that from. I said it was a force. No mind, no sentience, not a deity! Pro ignores almost every single thing I said in my refutation of the personality attribute. Con just says that the universe doesn't have to have an explanation, which is interesting when you consider that Con said quantum tunneling event explains the universe just a few paragraphs ago. Interesting indeed.... This is his only objection. Obviously I didn't just say the universe did not need an explanation, I actually never said that. I said if there is no laws, there needs no cause. I was saying this in a rhetorical sense, to use your own reasoning against you. Right after it I said Second, it only shows that our current laws couldn't exist before the universe. This is obvious, but why couldn't there exist some other laws before the universe? Why couldn't the Chroma exist with no laws governing it? Just like there's no laws governing God. Sentience need not apply, since the argument only shows something spatio- temporal can't create the universe, if valid. All that went ignored. Q and A Pro wants to end the debate with a Q and A. 1. If a scientific discovery came along and proved the Kalam to be false, would you automatically think the discovery is false, or would you accept it? 2. Why do you think the laws of physics are a product of the universe and not the other way around? 3. Why can"t other laws exist before the universe? 4. Do you think that you are looking for ways to make the conclusion God? Or are you objectivity examining evidence? Thanks for an interesting debate. Apologies for any double "". This is a glitch when you use debate.org from a mobile phone. Sources. _______________________________________________ [1] arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032 [2] Fallacy of Fine Tuning page 76.