The First Premise if the KCA is Probably True.

I wish to thank Con for instituting this debate. The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is as follows:Everything that begins to exist has a cause.It is sometimes rendered:Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.Con wishes to place the burden of proof on me, which I can understand, since it is a positive claim. But it's really not hard to support.We are justified in believing that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence because it lines up with our intuitions. Now granted, our intuitions are not always reliable. But if they are not reliable, it takes an argument to show why they are unreliable. We are justified in believing that the universe exists, even though we can't actually prove it. You can say you can test that it exists with your five senses, but you can't prove that your senses are accurate. Your intuitions tell you that they are. Your intuition tells you that when you stub your toe, it is genuinely painful -- the pain is not an illusion.I can't think of a single thing that comes into existence without a cause. In fact, William Lane Craig (who is the man that comes to mind when you think of the KCA) wrote, regarding the KCA,"When I first published my work on the kalam cosmological argument back in 1979, I figured that atheists would attack premise 2 of the argument, that the universe began to exist. But I didn't think they'd go after premise 1. For that would expose them as people not sincerely seeking after truth but just looking for an academic refutation of the argument."What a surprise, then, to hear atheists denying premise 1 in order to escape the argument! For example, Quentin Smith of Western Michigan University responded that the most rational position to hold is that the universe came 'from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing' [1] -- a nice close to a Gettysburg Address of atheism, perhaps!" [2]Quentin Smith is utterly mistaken. Nothing can come from nothing uncaused. Nothing is literally nothing; it has no qualities, no potentialities. It literally does not exist. Before the universe existed was nothing, and if nothing existed, nothing can come from it without cause.I can't think of a single thing that comes into existence uncaused. And if it did, then it remains inexplicable why just anything and everything doesn't come into existence from nothing. I exist, and the reason I exist is because my existence was caused by my mother and father conceiving me. The van I drive exists because people built it. Things don't just come into existence.I'm not sure how else I can justify the first premise. It just denies common sense that it would be false. Craig, in his book On Guard, lists three reasons to believe that premise 1 is true:1 -- Something cannot come from nothing.2 -- If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.3 -- Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1. [3]That's really all I have to say on the matter. I look forward to Con's response.[1] Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 135.[2] William Lane Craig, On Guard, Ontario, Canada, 2010, p. 76[3] ibid., pp. 75, 77, and 78.