Kalam Cosmological Argument (Twist debate)

Ave.I don't see how it's similar to the fallacy of composition accusation at all. As I pointed out in my last round, and as Dr. Craig states in his speech, the fallacy of composition is an objection to the logical validity of the KCA. The argument I'm putting forward has nothing to do with the logical validity of the KCA. It relates to the truth of the casual principle, which is the basis of the first premise. Pro doesn't even attempt to show that my argument is similar to the fallacy of composition objection. Instead, he relies on a bare assertion that they're similar, with no reasoning. Therefore, we have no reasons to believe that they are similar, and good reasons to believe that they are not.Where does this leave us in my response to the casual principle? In my rebuttal to Pro's opening statement, I gave an analogy about to geometry to object to the casusal principle. Pro's response to this was to confuse with it with the fallacy of composition argument. Now that I've demonstrated that this isn't the case, Pro has no substantial objection to the analogy I gave. The casual principle remains unjustified.....that is, until Pro gave a very short and incomplete justification of it. Pro argued that it is simply a 'deductive axiom'. This is, ladies and gentlemen, another bare assertion. We are given no reasons to believe that it is axiomatic and requires no justification. Things that are axiomatic, like mathematical truth, are rarely challenged by anyone who wants to be taken seriously. Yet, the casual principle is debated regularly. Why, then, should it be considered axiomatic? There are no reasons to accept Pro's only remaining justification for the casual principle, so by implication, there are no reasons to accept the casual principle itself.Showing that energy isn't eternal doesn't assist Pro. Firstly, we are given no reason to think that just because something is not eternal, it had a cause. Sure, the fact that the thing is contingent means it began to exist, but to argue that reason means it must have a cause is to beg the question, because it assumes the casual principle. Secondly, we are still in the process of debating whether this energy can begin to exist, but come from nothing.Pro points out that the quantum vacuum isn't a philosophical nothing. As I explained in my last round, I'm completely aware that the quantum vacuum is not the nothing that Leibniz would have thought of. However, this does not matter, because we are having a conversation about physics. Pro claimed that conservation of energy proves that something cannot come from nothing, and this claim falls solely under the domain of physics. Is it philosophical reasoning to say that we should use the physics definition of nothing in discussions about physics, as Pro says? Yes, that is philosophical reasoning. The problem for Pro is that I haven't dismissed philosophy. I have only dismissed philosophical terminology in a discussion which requires physics terminology. This is not physics refining philosophical terms, it's Pro trying to shove philosophical terms into areas where it doesn't belong.The quantum vacuum is what nothing is in physics, and Pro cannot say 'nothing comes from nothing based on physics', and then try to use philosophical terms rather than physics terms, which is wha this argument is about. Even if I lose the debate on this principle, it simply doesn't matter. I've never argued that the universe came from nothing.Pro tries to argue that I do, in fact, depend on the Copenhagen interpretation. The sad fact is that nothing in his Robert Koons quote had anything to do with my argument depending on the Copenhagen interpretation. Koons only states the opposing argument, and then talks about how the quantum vacuum isn't a philosophical nothing. What in the hell does this have to do with indeterministic interpretations of quantum phenomena? I'm completely unsure.Pro agrees that my argument doesn't beg the question, and drops the earlier objection.The Hartle-Hawking state is relevant to my argument, and should be brought up now that we're mentioning Hawking. This state argues that asking what caused the universe is like asking what is north of the North Pole. It's a malformed question.Pro does bring up an interesting objection, however. How can you have an infinite series of events when time began to exist fifteen billion years ago in the Big Bang? My answer is that it simply means that, while every state of the universe was cauesd by another one, there was no state that existed before fifteen billion years ago.The lunch analogy is valid because there is no period of time when you have been eating lunch for zero seconds! Therefore, an L=0 state is logically impossible, so it's parallel to the argument I gave about the universe.Vale.