The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

IntroductionPro mentions Newton's laws, but doesn't really explain how they tie in with the argument. Also, we know that the these laws apply within the universe and to its parts, but we do not know if these laws apply to the universe as a whole; that would be a fallacy of composition. For example, we know that objects within the universe give off their gravity that is also within the universe, but if we look at the universe as an object, we cannot say it gives off its own gravity. That analogy was just to illustrate that something that is true for the parts, is necessarily true for the whole (especially when dealing with the universe). Either way, the relevance of Newton's laws as far as this argument is concerned as not been established. I will rebut the argument left by Pro after he outlined Newton's laws.Rebutting My Opponent's ArgumentIn this section, I will be breaking down all my opponent's claims to show how they fail:"Everything that happens, happens because something happened before it, that caused the former to happen." - ProWell, there are many physicists who would disagree based on Quantum Mechanics (assuming one includes sufficient causation as a requirement for a proper causal process):"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville[1]"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physics[2]Either way, we only observe things happening that have causes within space-time, and pertaining to the parts of the universe. If we can consider the universe as a whole as something that "happened", then it is not clear at all why is must follow the same rules as that which is in the universe. Once more, this just seems like a fallacy of composition. There also doesn't seem to be anything impossible with the idea of something happening, with there being no "before" it for anything to happen to cause it in the first place."Obviously causes and effects in this scenario are the same thing as they would be in physics, this idea can not really be refuted since there is no scientific evidence to show that things just materialize out of thin air for no rhyme nor reason." - ProThe above is not true, as the nucleus splitting of atomic decay is something that is known to just happen spontaneously without a trigger cause:"...This decay happens when a large unstable nucleus spontaneously splits..."[3]Regardless, even if it was true that everything within the universe that happens has to have a cause, that doesn't mean it is true for the whole universe. Reasoning by composition is not absolute, and Pro needs to show the proper connection. "Every atom and particle in existence was a byproduct of causation." - ProThere are scientists who disagree with this as I have already shown. In order for Pro to meet his burden, he must show that indeterministic interpretations (like the Copenhagen interpretation) are false, as they entail acausality. "Following this chain of thought to its logical conclusion means that at some point there has to be an effect without having a prior cause, the end point of this train of thought would mean that something had to set all of this in motion and had to exist without having previously been created." - ProEven if I were to grant this, perhaps the first state of the universe expanding is what set everything else off, with there being no "prior" to this first state at all for any cause to exist? Until this possibility is ruled out, then the resolution has not been confirmed. "The loophole in this argument is that space-time continuum is infinite and the universe is not therefore our universe operates cyclically (expanding until it becomes so dense it collapses in on itself and a new big bang)." - ProActually, this idea of a "big crunch" has been refuted by recent discovered regarding dark energy. The universe will most likely keep expanding without collapsing:"Will the Universe expand forever or recollapse?This depends on the ratio of the density of the Universe to the critical density. If the density is higher than the critical density the Universe will recollapse in a Big Crunch. But current data suggest that the density is less than or equal to the critical density so the Universe will expand forever."[4]"This would therefore mean that the space-time continuum is the cause of the universe and therefore it must have a cause of its own" - ProThis conclusion does not actually follow as true, as the support for its founding premises are faulty." ...just as an inanimate object can't exert force on other objects our current being could not exist without some amount of will on the part an "Unmoved mover" to use Aristotle's term for it, intervening in some way." - ProAgain, this is a fallacy of composition. Even if every part of the universe that moves needs a cause, it wouldn't follow that if the whole universe moves, it needs a cause as well. ConclusionAll of my opponent's support for the Kalam Cosmological Argument failed; the resolution has not been established. Sources[1] http://atheism.about.com...[2] http://www.infidels.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...