Resolved; quantum mechanics do not refute the first premise of Kalam

Everything which begins to exist must have a cause; The point in my last objection was to say that there are a posteriori considerations in determining whether or not there is a possible world in which something beginning to exist completely uncaused obtains. What this shows is that we cannot reject the principle that everything which begins to exist has a cause a-priori given the fact that there are no logical contradictions in the idea of something coming into existence uncaused. Thus this is not a case of either the first premise of kalam is logically incoherent or necessarily true. Simply because we cannot know the principle is true with certainty doesn't mean it isn't true. Nor do I have the burden to show that there is no possible way that everything which begins to exist has a cause. Because a-posteriori considerations are in place, it is possible someone in the future may discover something which shows it to be false, or prove it to be true. What I aim to show is that the principle is at least more plausible than its antecedent, given the information we have at hand. I would also argue here that the principle that nothing begins to exist without a cause is intuitive or properly basic. Essentially what this means is without any objections to the principle we should accept it as true. Of course my opponent has given some quite thoughtful objections to this principle to which I'll address. But my point here is if those objections don't hold water, and I don't think they do, then we should accept the principle that everything which begins to exist has a cause. To learn more about this line of reasoning see; http://en.wikipedia.org... Deterministic Interpretations; My opponent argues that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics places an explanation where none is required and is thus a violation of Occam's razor. I think this is a mistaken assessment of at least the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Whereas Bohmian interpretation does add a new equation for the motion of quantum particles it also eliminate postulates in the measurement process.[2] Thus it seems that Occam's razor is irrelevant in regards to Bohmian mechanics. Hilary Putnam, a Corresponding Fellow at British Academy and the Cogan University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University stated about his book "A Philosopher Looks At Quantum Mechanics" that, "...In Putnam ([1965]), I rejected Bohm's interpretation for several reasons which no longer seem good to me. Even today, if you look at the Wikipedia encyclopaedia on the Web, you will find it said that Bohm's theory is mathematically inelegant. Happily, I did not give that reason in Putnam ([1965]), but in any case it is not true. The formula for the velocity field is extremely simple: you have the probability current in the theory anyway, and you take the velocity vector to be proportional to the current. There is nothing particularly inelegant about that; if anything, it is remarkably elegant!"[3] As far as non-locality requiring super-luminal velocities, it has been argued that non-locality is inherent in quantum physics itself, see [2]. Grounds for Quantum Fluctuations Being Uncaused; 1) There may be no fleshed out deterministic interpretations of particle-field theory, but there does seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel in that regard. See; [2] 2 and 3) In a dissertation on intuition Brian Talbot lays out an argument that intuitions can and should be used in the are of causation. Talbot first defines an intuition as a proposition or principle which simply seems true but not for transparent reasons. Taking this admittedly crude definition of intuition, Talbot argues that our intuitions are formed through our subconscious. Talbot points out that at an unconscious level we process massive amounts of information, and because we are not aware of much of this information, at least some of our intuitions should be considered useful in the field of philosophy. Talbot also argues that factors such as motivation, exposure to certain views (i.e. being told over and over again that a certain proposition is true), and the order in which information is received can affect the formation of our intuitions in negative ways. Thus we should be suspicious of such intuitions. However, according to Talbot, there are at least three which do not fall into these traps because they are formed almost solely through information that our conscious mind does not have access to. They are; responsibility, intention and CAUSATION. Forming intuitions about causation requires our unconscious to pay attention to minute details and changes in our environment, often over long periods of time. This is precisely what our unconscious is good at.[4] I will grant that this argument is extremely complex and involves sophisticated concepts in the realm of psychology, but nevertheless I find it to be a compelling case against my opponents second and third arguments against our intuition. Necessary Causation / Sufficient Causation; My point is that if something begins to exist with only a necessary cause it is not beginning to exist without a cause. And so you would have to say that a quantum vacuum existed from which the universe came into existence. There are two major problems with this theory; 1) The quantum vacuum would have had to begun to exist otherwise the vacuum would have spawned a universe at every point, meaning our universe would have collided with another universe as soon as it was created.[5] 2) Quantum tunneling would form a massive amount of messy singularities which wouldn't even be stable enough to expand into the universe we see today.[6] Closing remarks; I would like to thank rationalthinker1919 for his time and well thought out responses to my arguments. But I would also like to remind the reader that my burden of proof is not to prove the causal principle is true (though I'll admit I dabbled in arguments for it), but merely to show that quantum physics poses no serious objection to it. My opponent has failed to show that one cannot rationally hold to the principle that everything which begins to exist has a cause and quantum mechanics at the same time, thus I strongly encourage you to vote pro. 1. http://arxiv.org... 2. http://plato.stanford.edu... 3. http://digitallibrary.usc.edu... 4. http://www.leaderu.com... 5. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...