The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

"Con uses Quantum mechanics to justify something coming from nothing and something coming into existence without a cause."According to the standard interpretations (indeterministic), this seems to be the case. "It has been argued that if you think you know quantum theory you don't know quantum theory (Richard Feynman)."We have a very good understanding of quantum theory. A vacuum fluctuation is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)[1]. Pro has given us no reason to reject indeterministic interpretations, for a deterministic one."also quantum fluctuations may be coming from something (some hidden energy field or something not nothing)"Yes, they could be. However, even if they came from something, that doesn't mean they had a cause. That original "something" could just be a necessary condition, without any sufficient conditions. Pro still has not told us which view of causality he is endorsing here. Humean causality? Aristotelian causality? We are left with nothing to support his case with. Regardless, caused fluctuations require a deterministic interpretation. Pro has the burden of proof, and he has given us no reason to drop one for the other. "Also you are quoting stephen hawking's book the Grand Design which was probably more for money and fame that stephen hawking wrote that book."I did not quote anything from Stephen Hawking's book. "If something can come from nothing or something come without a cause than why not you show us?"Because the burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on Pro to show that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Pro has not proved this. "My argument on abiogenesis was also used to prove that point. Life cannot come from non life and something can't come from nothing, those are observable and logical facts."They are not facts, and there is no logic, or observation to support either of those two contentions. This is just appealing to ignorance."The burden of proof is on you to prove that something can come from nothing, until you can do that we only have one logical explanation to the origin of the universe and that is some intelligent designer."Nope. The burden of proof is on Pro to show that something cannot come from nothing, or that something cannot come into being without a cause. Pro has not proven his case. We have no reason to accept the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. "Make something come from nothing if you are truthful"Does Pro believe God made the universe out of nothing? If so, then Pro believes that something can come from nothing! This is why the Kalam is self-refuting. "Quantum physics won't do because it hasn't been fully understood and as Richard Feynman said you don't know it."Even if we don't fully understand it, that doesn't mean that we don't understand it. "I am arguing with you in terms of common sense not hypothetical quantum weirdness"Science shatters our notion of common sense. This makes Pro's arguments weak. "Something can't come from nothing, and it never happens and it has never been proven empirically that objects come from nothing (why don't stars of planets come from nothing why only virtual particles? How do you know they don't come from something invisible either?)"Pro has not proven that something cannot come from nothing, or that something cannot come into being without a cause. He is committing the shifting the burden of proof fallacy."Also if t=0 at the Beginning of the Big bang how did t= 1, 2, or 3 after the big bang."The above makes no sense, and it is not worded coherently. I already explained my argument perfectly clear. "Logically speaking how can something come without a cause."Why can't it? The burden of proof is on Pro to prove the first premise. My argument with regards to their being no first decimal after 0, and there being no t=0 does not involve something coming from nothing without a cause. This is a straw-man. "Time is a dimension and string theory suggests there are other dimensions how do you know there isn't an entity existing on a dimension beyond time who created the universe?"My opponent admits that time is a dimension. Thus, he adheres to the Minkowski space-time interpretation. This means, he concedes the A-Theory of time. Since he concedes that B-Theory is true, by admitting time is a dimension, then he concedes that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. The resolution has been negated off of this alone. "The universe can't be infinite because then we won't be here, it must have a creator, if not make something come from nothing"Why couldn't we be here if the universe was infinite? Pro just makes claims without support, it is embarrassing. ConclusionPro did not object to my argument that there could not be a singularity at t=0, and since there is no first decimal after 0; a first state of the universe is impossible. He also did not support A-theory, and inadvertently conceded B-Theory! Thus, without even knowing it, Pro admits that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. The resolution has been negated. Sources[1] http://www.infidels.org...