The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

P1 Very simply, the Con is unjustifiably separating the quantum vacuum condition from a cause, but misses the fact that the quantum fluctuation is inherently a probabilistic framework much like flipping a coin. With enough variables known, one could precisely calculate what side the coin is going to land (no one denies this); precisely as with quantum fluctuation- if there is enough known (sufficient cause), then one could determine the outcome of a fluctuation; however, because we don't have all of the constants-INTUITIVELY, the bandwagon will see the mathematical canopy (probabilistic framework) surrounding the truth and unjustifiably interpret it as reality, but that would lead us into many problems. The quantum world is the fundamental building blocks by which the macro is built on. If there is NO causation in the micro, then you have NO causation in the macro. If there are UNDETERMINED causes in the micro, then the macro has AVERAGE causation-THIS IS WHAT WE CAN OBSERVE IN THE MACRO. You can't take an average of no causations and get a cause. A field is an UNDETERMINED probabilistic framework, not a smear of reality or certainly not a vacuum of reality and causes. You don't need to know exactly the cause of the coin landing to know it had a cause. The Bandwagon fallacy is then used by the CON to support the interpretation that this mathematical framework is the intuitively correct interpretation. In order for this claim to be true, the CON must successfully defeat the following paragraphs (This is a requisite to latter arguments as well): 1)The Con INTUITIVELY wants to separate laws that govern the macro and micro because they no doubt behave much differently. However, to do this, the CON MUST give a justifiable reason for the CON'S distinction. What is inherently different about the macro and micro? DO NOT LET THE CON GET AWAY WITHOUT ANSWERING THIS QUESTION. DO NOT let him use quantum mechanics or general relativity or anything that depends on them (particles) for THOES ARE DETERMINED WITHIN THE INHERENCY OF ITS SIZE. Micro/Macro is not determined by the laws of nature. This answer is what the Grand Unified Theory strives for. IF CON CANNOT ANSWER THIS, then THERE IS A SUPERNATURAL VOID BETWEEN THESE VERY SEPARATE REALMS PROVIDING THE PRO'S CONCLUSION-the only model left standing. 2)IF CON CANNOT ANSWER THIS AND STILL REJECTS THE SUPERNATURAL, then the NATURAL law of a/causation applies simultaneously to both realms meaning Con must either drop acausation or acausation links to my earlier argument about rational thinking. If the Con contends that there are simply NO causations for quantum fluxes (as supposed to the much more reasonable UNDETERMINED causes of fluctuations), then there is NO average causation for the CON to make a conclusions as to render the CON's conclusion void of any logic or support whatsoever. Do not let CON get away without answering this. (-: Regardless, if CON can't provide a justified natural gap (Grand Unified Theory) and STILL denies the supernatural and wants to concede a rational thinking debate, then the only alternative is for causality to apply in both realms. As provided, without causality-no one can conclude anything because there are no causes to provide the conclusion (as CON conceded to last round). CAUSALITY OUTSIDE SPACE-TIME BOUNDARY: My opponent is refusing to apply everything we know about causality outside of the space-time boundary. The CON has already eluded that quantum fluctuation happens outside of the space-time boundary and cannot change that on the conclusion at this point, so causality must apply as well (See previous arguments the Con must dispute first). Therefore, Causality stands outside of the space-time boundary just as some unverifiable amount of quantum fluctuation does. P2 The Con missed the rebuttal to the Grunbaum and Swinburne's premise. Again, this assumes acausality- I have already rebutted acausality outside of the space-time boundary extensively. Do not let the CON get away with not addressing this assumption to this premise again.[5] Vilenkin 1982 tunneling model or the Hartle and Hawking 1983 no boundary proposal, "does have a beginning" [12], and therefore requires transcendent activation if it is to be anything more than an inert mathematical description, but even if it didn't the Con must explain the non-uniformity and the sudden acceleration of that very model. As of the time of writing the book, Dr. Hawking was careful to say, "I'd like to emphasize that this idea that time and space should be finite 'without boundary' is just a proposal. It cannot be deduced from some other principal." (Hawking, p. 175). Dr. Hawkins also goes on to mention," A space-time in which events have imaginary values of the time coordinate is said to be Euclidean, after the ancient Greek Euclid, who founded the study of the geometry of two-dimensional surfaces. What we now call Euclidean space-time is very similar except that it has four dimensions instead of two. In Euclidean space-time there is no difference between the time direction and directions in space." Dr. Robert J. Spitzer goes on to say, "The Harle-Hawking proposal also involves a variety of unwarranted assumption, not least of which is retaining in the model's solution the computational expient of a Euclidean rather than Lorentzian space-time metric for the precise purpose of avoiding an initial singularity." [12] The no-boundary proposal fails for the mere fact that it does not accurately portray the geometry of the Universe. Time is certainly different than the other three. "Singularities are predicted on a strictly Relativity based Big Bang model, neglecting quantum effects."- CON "This is mind-bogglingly false"-CON ;-) The Con missed the argument made in the video involving "The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Boundary to Past Time Theorems",2003 has gone undisputed since. It is basically the description that ANY ANY ANY UNIVERSE WITH AN AVERAGE HUBBLE EXPANSION GREATER THAN ZERO will eventually reach a point where they hit constant velocities due to the cosmological speed limit. Reversing the time thus causes a point in time in which you can't get any faster than the speed of light necessitating a singularity and thus a point where space does not exist-t=0- a point in time where space did not exist. There is a boundary so there is a necessity for a supernaturalistic quality during this boundary time. DO NOT LET THE CON GET AWAY WITHOUT THOUGHOULY AND LOGICALLY ADRESSING THIS PROOF. WHY THE CONCLUSION ISN'T SURPRISING: Not only do both premises & conclu. stand there are roughly 20 Cosmological Constants that must be so precisely met for any type of life on earth to sustain, let alone pop into existence. 1.Plank Length 2.Plank Time 3.Plank Energy 4.Max Speed of Light 5.Gravitation attraction constant 6.Weak force coupling constant 7.Strong nuclear force coupling constant 8.Rest mass of proton 9.Rest mass of an electron 10.The electron or proton unit charge 11.Min mass in our universe 12.Total rest mass in Universe 13.Boltzmann constant 14.Hubble constant 15.Cosmological constant 16.Cosmic photon/proton ratio 17.Permittivity of free space 18.Electromagnetic fine-structure constant 19.Weak fine-structure constant 20.Gravitational fine-structure constant Roger Penrose, Owen Gingerrich, Fred Hoyle, Walter Bradley, Brandon Carter, Paul Davies, and others have assembled an immense amount of data to show the very narrow, closed range of values required for our universe's energetic, individuating, large-scale, and fine-structure constants allowing for anthropic conditions. The odds of our anthropic universe arising amidst the total phase-space volume of possible universes for a creation event is 1 in 10^10^125! This is my last, as agreed. I thank my opponent for such a thought provoking debate. EXTEND PREVIOUS REFERENCES MORE: 12) Dr. Robert J. Spitzer, 2010; New Proofs for the Existence of God