The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

P1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A CauseA bare assertion fallacy is when a part of an argument is assumed to be true just because it is said to be true [1]. Pro, in his first argument, said that something cannot come from nothing. This went completely unsupported.Now, Pro states: "Something that is very important to note is that we cannot know that something is 100% true."This is false. We know that spherical rectangles and married bachelors in kindergarten cannot exist 100% a priori [2]. This is because, said things involve contradictory properties. Anyway, As far as my argument goes involving something coming into being from "something" without a cause, still falsifying the first premise, my opponent misses the point entirely. We know how chairs come into existence, and they are caused (my analogy that wasn't supposed to be taken literally). The problem is, even if the quantum vacuum is "something", modern physics tells us that fluctuations coming from this vacuum are probably uncaused. Here are some supporting quotes from experts in the field:"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [3] "Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist [4] Now, my opponent states that Vacuum Fluctuation models didn't survive the 80's, and there are some serious problems with Tryon type models. Here is a quote from Dr. William Lane Craig supporting Pro's position:"Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one." - Dr. William Lane Craig [5] Dr. Craig's objections here are completely valid, and it is correct that almost all Tryon type models are dead and gone (as my opponent alluded to as well). What's the punch line? None of the objections raised by my opponent or Dr. Craig here apply to Alexander Vilenkin's model (the one I'm actually arguing for), because there is no background space-time in his model. You see, in most Tryon type models, there is some sort of space-time which the fluctuation would have to pop out off. This, one more, leads to huge problems. Here is Dr. Craig quoting physicist Christopher Isham:"According to Isham this problem proved to be “fairly lethal” to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were “jettisoned twenty years ago” and “nothing much” has been done with them since." - Dr. William Lane Craig [5] However, Isham writes that, “a scheme like Vilenkin’s might have some approximate validity.” Basically, Dr. Craig's and my opponent's objections only apply to models where there is a background space-time and the quantum event was a fluctuation. This is not the case with Vilenkin's model, the quantum event here would be quantum tunnelling from no background space-time. Therefore, absolutely none of my opponent's arguments have any relevance. Alexander Vilenkin's model still firmly stands unscathed. My opponent also talks about how a universe coming into being as a quantum nucleation event, would completely contradict the First Law of Thermodynamics. This is not true. "...in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero." - Stephen Hawking [6] "There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative." - Physicist Paul Davies [7]It has been proven with extreme accuracy that we live in a flat universe. In a flat universe, the total energy likely equals zero. Thus, the conservation of energy does absolutely nothing to damage the idea that the universe coming into being as a quantum nucleation event is theoretically possible.Now, when it comes to causation and time, I'm not saying that there could not be a cause of the universe because of this. Just that, there is no reason to think this is the case. It's an unneeded assumption because all examples we have of causes, have time as a necessary condition. If this necessary condition (time) isn't existent, there is no good reason to think a cause would be. As far as simultaneous causation is concerned, William Lane Craig claims: "For example, a heavy chandelier hanging on a chain from the ceiling. The ceiling and chain hold up the chandelier; the chandelier and chain don't support the ceiling... They[Atheists] might say that even simultaneous causation presupposes time. Yes, the cause and effect occur at the same time. But then why couldn't such a causal dependency exist timelessly?" - Dr. William Lane Craig [8] The problem is that for simultaneous causation to have occurred, the causal dependencies must have involved the beginning of the existence of the chandelier, chain, and ceiling which occurred temporally prior to the effect. Also, other conditions which existed earlier to this simultaneous causation must have existed before the effect as well. Thus, even simultaneous causation doesn't get rid of the validity of the presupposition of time as a necessary condition for causation. This is because, all examples of simultaneous causation adhere to it. P2: The Universe Began To Exist My opponent quotes Alexander Vilenkin to support his claim that the universe began. However, Alexander Vilenkin also stated: "There must have been a beginning. The question, is what kind of beginning that was." - Alexander Vilenkin [9] “...the words “absolute beginning” do raise some red flags…” - Alexander Vilenkin to Victor Stenger [10]Now, Pro says:"This premise is pretty much accepted as fact in the scientific community."This depends on how you define "the universe" and a "beginning". Thus, Pro hasn't even come close to meeting his burden. He must show the universe had an absolute beginning in order to support this premise in context. ConclusionMy opponent had two important objections to Tryon models. However, the background space-time problem doesn't apply to Vilenkin's model. Plus, in a flat universe the total energy is zero, so a universe coming into being as a quantum nucleation event doesn't contradict the conservation of energy. Also, all examples of simultaneous causation presuppose temporally prior "causal dependencies". Pro hasn't met his burden with premise 2 by demonstrating that the singularity began. All we know is that the universe as we know it had a beginning from a singularity. Pro has the BoP here, and his arguments remain without proper defense. My objections remain without a scratch.Sources [1] http://fallacies.sciencedaily.com...[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] http://atheism.about.com... [4] http://www.infidels.org... [5] Reasonable Faith (3rd edition): Christian Truth and Apologetics (P.182) [6] Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam. (P.129)[7] Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. (P.31)[8] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[9] Video Source (10:30)[10] Victor J. Stenger: The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, 2011 http://www.youtube.com...