Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

Causal principleThe argument is still very similar to the fallacy of composition objection.Intuition is not the only way the first premise is proven. The causal principle is not just simple intuition, it is a deductive axiom. I understand you weren't trying to make an argument for the eternal universe, but the argument I was trying to make was that since energy cannot eternal, it must have a cause. Since it couldn't have been created with these laws, and it couldn't be eternal. Matter and energy make up the Universe [1], if they were uncaused, it would be within this Universe, violating the law. They can't be eternal, thus they must have a cause outside the Universe.Quantum mechanics.These vacuums aren't in nothing. Con does claim that physics defines nothing as something. However, this argument is philosophical. One can redefine their terms, but it will not refute the philosophical argument. The conservation of energy does propose a dilemma, if one accepts this redefinition of nothing, you still have the problem of the destruction of the Universe. Furthermore, these virtual particles do rely on the Copenhagen interpretation"Others have used the creation of virtual particles from the vacuum as evidence that things can begin to exist without a cause. If the energy involved is small enough, and the period of existence is short enough, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows particles to emerge from "nothing" and to disappear shortly thereafter. However, this argument fails to distinguish between something containing no energy or particles and sheer nothingness. In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is not a nothing. It is the indeterministic cause of the temporary existence of the virtual particles." - Robert C. Koons (University of Texas) [2]Koons also says this argument is making a category error between causality and determinism."For now, let me say that Smith seems to have confused causation with determinism. There is no absurdity in the idea of indeterministic, non-necessitating causation. The decay of a uranium atom is caused by the preceding state of the atom, whether or not anything about that state determined or necessitated that the decay should occur when it did. Similarly, my power of will is the cause of my free actions, even if those actions were not predetermined by any state of that will." [2]States of the UniverseThis argument did seem circular, but con cleared it up. The obvious problem is an infinite regress, I'll get to that later. Hawking does still argue that there was a t=0 state. In a recently filmed series called "Grand design", he argues that God couldn't cause the Universe, because time didn't exist at the big bang [3]. Hawking's definition of cause can be debated, but it contradicts my opponents argument.On the definitions of Universe. How could the material reality exist without space time?If the rope analogy is a false analogy, then your original lunch analogy is also false in trying to prove an actual infinite exists. The accusation that the rope analogy is false, is based on a category mistake. Con isn't trying to resolve the infinite regress problem, which his lunch analogy was. This rope analogy was responding to your attempt to resolve the regress, not the states argument.Sources[1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [2] http://www.leaderu.com... [3] http://www.youtube.com...