The Cosmological Argment is Sound

Ave.Con begins by using examples from quantum mechanics to demonstrate that things happen without cause. I think that there are good reasons to be skeptical of his claim. Con’s examples assume that the Copenhagen interpretation is true. This interpretation has been widely abandoned due to the experimental vindication of Bell’s theorem. Scholarpedia says more about how Bell’s theorem puts the Copenhagen interpretation in dispute.[1] Con's argument depends on a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is problematic because we really don't know what the proper interpretation of quantum mechanics is. The behavior Con talks about is only indeterministic on the Copenhagen interpretation, so Con has to ignore deterministic interpretations. Is this justified? I don't think it can be.Con also tries to show that energy can come from nothing. However, this has the same problem as Lawrence Krauss's examples of virtual particles do. The quantum fluctuations that Con talks about occur in a vacuum state. This is assuredly not nothing. Wikipedia explains: [2] Con accepts that the universe didn't exist eternally. Because he rejects the cosmological argument, he objects to explanation three as well. So, Con tries to demonstrate how our universe could have came from nothing in an atheistic world view.The first argument Con gives essentially states that 'there are no rules on nothing, so something can from nothing'. This attempt at reifying negative terms can't work. Yes, there are no restrictions on nothing. But by the same token, nothing isn't able to do anything either! Con says that there are no restrictions on nothing, because otherwise there would be rules, which is something. Yet, Con doesn't apply that logic to reach the conclusion that something can't come from nothing as well. Think about it: if nothing was able to do something (have something come from it), then it wouldn't be nothing at all. It seems that Con is using one method of reasoning to get the conclusion he wants, but doesn't apply that method when it would support ex nihilo nihil fit.Ironically, Con ends up supporting my original argument. Con says that 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! True nothing, with no properties, doesn't make any sense as a concept. There is no such thing as an absolute nothingness. Therefore, something cannot come from ir, because it wouldn't really be nothing. It always has at least one property. Con's arguments just demonstrate the point I was trying to make from the start.I think it could be said that god created the universe from nothing. This doesn't make my argument contradictory at all. Remember, I said 'The universe couldn’t have come from nothing without cause.' I never said that the universe couldn't have come from nothing. My argument is that, on an atheistic world view, there is no way for something to come form nothing. As a theist, I have justification to believe that something can come from nothing, which is that god created the universe ex nihilo.Con argues that the positive energy and the negative energy of the universe equal out, so there is no explanation as to why energy exists. It just came from nothing. This obviously doesn't explain the existence of positive energy and negative energy in the first place. If I owe Con five dollars, and I have five dollars in my pocket, then my total finances cancel out. It's absurd to suggest that there is no explanation for the existence of my money because of this. My money must have come from nothing!Quantum tunneling doesn't allow the universe to begin to exist without cause either. [3] It seems strange for Con to posit a naturalistic explanation of the universe beginning to exist. Nature (or physical things) only began to exist when the universe began to exist. So, how did physical things cause physical things to begin to exist? It's some weird form of causation where physical things cause physical things before physical things even exist. It simply makes no sense.Con tries to parody the cosmological argument and put forward a timeless, spaceless, powerful, and immaterial being called Chroma. 'Why choose god over Chroma?', Con asks mockingly. Well, it should be fairly obvious that Chroma is just god under a different name. This parody is a weak objection.Ultimately, Con never refutes the idea that the cause is more plausibly personal than physical. Apeiron divided the explanation of the universe into two things: personal and scientific. It couldn't have been scientific (physical) because physical things can't explain why physical things exist. Logically, it would have to be a personal, rational agent. This line of reasoning is never anwered to by Con. 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....Vale.References[1] http://www.scholarpedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...