The KCA is a Sound Argument

Achtung! Although I prefer to say more, I'll keep this round as brief as Pro. ConductAs I showed in my previous round, Pro plagiarized 776 characters of his last round from William Lane Craig. Pro: "Hawking and Mlodinow advocate what they call a “top down” approach to this question. The idea here is to begin with our presently observed universe characterized by the standard model of particle physics and then calculate, given the no boundary condition, the probability of the various histories allowed by quantum physics to reach our present stateThe top down approach calculates the probability of our observable universe given the no boundary condition. The top down approach doesn’t calculate the probability that the no boundary condition should hold but takes it for granted. Such a condition is not metaphysically or physically necessary. If the universe came into being uncaused from nothing, it could have had any sort of conceivable spatiotemporal configuration. "William Lane Craig: "Hawking and Mlodinow advocate what they call a “top down” approach to this question. The idea here is to begin with our presently observed universe characterized by the standard model of particle physics and then calculate, given the no boundary condition, the probability of the various histories allowed by quantum physics to reach our present state. The most probable history represents the history of our observable universe. Hawking and Mlodinow claim that “in this view, the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing” (p. 136). By “spontaneously” they seem to mean without a cause. But how does that follow from the model? The top down approach calculates the probability of our observable universe giventhe no boundary condition. The top down approach doesn’t calculate the probability that the no boundary condition should hold but takes it for granted. Such a condition is not metaphysically or physically necessary. If the universe came into being uncaused from nothing, it could have had any sort of conceivable spatiotemporal configuration. For nothingness, or non-being, has no properties or constraints and is governed by no physical laws. Physics only begins at the “South Pole” in the no boundary model. There isn’t anything in the model that implies that that point came to be without a cause. Indeed, the idea that being could arise without a cause from non-being seems metaphysically absurd. " (. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...)Pro failed to answer to these allegations, and I believe that the evidence against him is clear. SourcesPro tried to use a completely bogus citation. Pro states that nothing has no potentiality to do anything, and then cites page one hundred and thirty six of A Brief History of Time as support for this. As I showed in my previous round, this citation is completely made up, as the page cited has nothing to do with Pro's assertion. ArgumentPro has not established the first premise as true, so it follows that the argument is not sound, entailing a Con vote. - He failed to answer the argument that we have no experience of the Big Bang singularity, so our rational faculties, as something created by experience, cannot be used to tell us whether or not the Big Bang singularity had to have a cause- He failed to respond to the argument that many of our metaphysical intuitions that we took to be necessarily true have been disproven by scientific evidence- He failed to respond to my argument against the soundness of inductive reasoningIt follows that P1 is unsubstantiated. In regards to the second premise. .. - He failed to respond to my argument that the universe could have been self-caused. It follows that even if the universe had a cause, it was not god. Thanks to JS for participating in this debate with me.