The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

The Validity Of The Kalam Cosmological Argument For the sake of this debate, I will grant that the Kalam Cosmological Argument's logic is valid. Premise 1: Everything that comes into existence has a cause. My opponent simply committed the Bare Assertion fallacy by stating "something cannot come from nothing" without justification. It is also a very strange claim to say that "something cannot come from nothing", because if there is "nothing", then there would be nothing to stop "something" from occurring. I'm not implying that something can come from nothing at this point, just that my opponent hasn't met his burden of proof with regards to this ex nihilo nihil fit concept. Also, something can begin to exist even if it is not from nothing (like a chair), if this ever occurred without a cause, then the first principle would still be falsified. Thus, one does not have to show the concept of ex nihil nihil fit false in the first place to refute the first premise. Now, there are huge problems with the first premise. A vacuum fluctuation is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi). Alexander Vilenkin's model of comic origins [1] describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). This event would happen without a cause, from an empty geometry void of anything, including space-time. All of this would flow from the current laws of physics. Basically, there are equations which rely on acausal principles which could plausibly describe the beginning of the universe. The very fact that these comply with the laws of physics, disproves the claim that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument regarding scientific causality involves a principle that we should take very seriously. My last objection, would be to claim that causation presupposes time (if my opponent brings up simultaneous causation, I have a rebuttal for that as well). If I cause a bottle to begin to exist for example, this is because their was a point in time when the bottle didn't exist, there was also an interval of time where the causation takes place. However, there is no "before" the Plank Epoch (Zero - 10-43 seconds) [2] in which the universe didn't exist, and no time interval for this cause to originate and, well, cause its effect. This doesn't mean a cause of the universe is impossible, just unlikely based on what we know and it is a violation of Parsimony in light of the fact that it is not required to explain the universe's existence (it's an unneeded assumption). Premise 2: The Universe came into existence. The Big Bang Theory does not support the idea that the singularity popped into existence from absolutely nothing. The Big Bang theory simply describes the inflation of the singularity from this initial state, into a larger and expanded universe. "The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. " - Wikipedia [3] "It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky. " - NASA [4] Basically, there is nothing about The Big Bang Model which states the universe popped into existence out of absolutely nothing. This is just a human error with regards to how us finite beings think, in reality though, if you go back in time (assuming the A-Theory for the sake of this argument), you cannot reach a point past the singularity where you could say "nothing exists at this point". This is because, there is no "before" The Big Bang. Many will claim it's the same thing, just different wording, however there is a huge difference between:(i) Before The Big Bang, there was nothing. (ii) There was no before The Big Bang. (i) implies that there was nothing, and then The Big Bang occurred. (ii) implies that The Big Bang occurred. (ii) is clearly more in line with The Big Bang theory, and appeals to Parsimony more as well. Conclusion: The Universe had a cause. My opponent has failed to show that the first premise is true, and I mentioned a model of cosmic origins which works without the universe requiring a cause at all. Pro also failed to show that the second premise is even true, it may be true that we cannot even say the universe as a whole has an origin because there is no "before" the universe, in which the universe could have "came from". Therefore, the Kalam Cosmological Argument seems to be an utter disappointment. Sources[1] Alexander Vilenkin: “tunneling from literally nothing”, 1982,1988 paper[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...