The First Premise if the KCA is Probably True.

Intuition Pro argued that the person arguing against intuition inherently has a burden of proof. This concept is something that has been asserted by my opponent throughout the debate, but no real logic was ever presented to support it. Pro writes that intuition must support the idea that something cannot come from nothing because it is a logically incoherent concept. While the type of nothing my opponent is referring to in his argument, nothing with no qualities or potentialities, cannot exist, I see no reason why the type of nothing I brought up in my arguments could not have/ cannot exist(ed). Thunderf00t’s argument is not invalid, though it could have been organized a little more clearly as follows: P1. Objects pushed forward move faster. P2. A can of spam is an object. C1. Therefore, a can of spam, when pushed forward, moves faster. C2. Therefore, a can of spam traveling at light speed pushed forward will move faster than light speed. But just because C1 was not explicitly stated in the argument, it’s implication from the premises is enough to justify C2. The real objection my opponent has is that C2 does not follow from the previous premises and conclusion. It is not difficult to see, however, that C2 does indeed follow logically. In P1, no restrictions are placed on what objects are applicable or at whether there are certain speeds at which objects cannot move. It is a broad statement that encompasses all objects moving at all speeds. This third premise that my opponent discusses would only be needed if P1 did not encompass all speeds. And in disputing the validity of this silly argument, Pro brushes over the point of the argument: That our intuition has been wrong many times when we are discussing extreme conditions. While, I do not disagree with Pro’s only comment related to this point: “Our intuitions are not necessarily incorrect when dealing with extreme conditions,” our intuitions are more likely to be incorrect when discussing extreme situations that are different from our practical experiences. Pro straw mans my argument in only responding to the claim that our intuition must necessarily be wrong with extreme situations. My argument was that we have good grounds not to necessarily trust our intuitions when they have been shown to be wrong in similar situations. In short, it is better to take a position of agnosticism when we have a lack of conclusive evidence than to hold onto a belief based on intuition. While we can observe the universe around us and know that within our realm of common being, things do not come into existence uncaused, it is logically unsound to extend this basic knowledge to everything as the KCA does. Something from Nothing vs. from Something While theists and I may disagree on our definition of nothing, my point does not go away. While absolute nothingness in the sense my opponent talks about may never have existed, there is no reason to think that nothingness in the sense that I defined it could not exist. And we have never experienced the kind of nothing I defined. Therefore, we cannot make judgements about this state, whatever one wishes to call it. Nevertheless, this is what the premise does. In saying that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the premise is including things in this state about which we have no knowledge. What it comes down to is this: Yes, everything in our common experiences within the universe has a cause, but this means nothing for events outside of the universe or outside of the something we experience. This has been my argument all along and Pro has never really refuted it. Conclusion I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Pro has not demonstrated that we can make a judgement on whether it is more probable or not on whether things outside of our realm of experience must have a cause when they begin to exist. The resolution is negated.