The Kalam Cosmological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

Against the fact that anything which begins to exist must have a cause, my opponent uses the example of energy conservation in an attempt to find something which began to exist without any prior cause. He has surely failed in this attempt for the following reasons: 1) While it is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed, this doesn"t invalidate the KCA because energy does not have a beginning, and the KCA does not hold that things such as energy which have no beginning have causes. Rather, it attributes causes only to things which have beginning. 2) Pro mistakenly asserts that because the energy of which the phycial universe was made always existed, that therefore the physical universe always existed and had no cause. This is the same kind of reasoning which holds that because the materials (the sand, stone, and steel) of which a building is made already existed in the earth thousands of years before construction began, that the building already existed for thousands of years before its foundation was laid and therefore the engineers, architects, and mason were not the cause of the building. The raw materials for a cake already existing before a cake is made doesn"t prove the cake didn"t have a cause. Similarly, the existence of energy before the Big Bang doesn"t prove the universe didn"t have a cause. In fact, the current astronomical evidence we have points to a beginning of the physical universe. If Pro wants to claim that the only thing which began is (not the universe, but) the form the universe now possesses, this current form must still have a cause. It is well known that every time energy changes from one form to another, these changes have causes. A match does not become fire and smoke without friction as the cause, and so too, some cause was necessary for the original energy that made the universe to change its form. 3) If the energy of which the universe is made always existed and never changed to become the physical universe before the Big Bang, then there must have been some change in circumstances that caused this change to take place. Common sense dictates if that before the Big Bang the energy was always in one form, it would have remained so as long as it was undisturbed. We are accustomed to all the things we know of that have beginnings such as living organisms, natural disasters, and man-made objects, as having causes, so its actually well established that things with beginnings have causes. Every tree was caused by a seed being in fertile conditions, every child was caused by the sperm meeting an egg, every thought was caused by outside stimulation of the neurological processes of our brain, and the list goes on and on. KCA is backed by our very day-to-day experience of life. Then Pro brings up the spontaneous generation of particles in Quantum Physics an example of something beginning to exist without a cause, but this example also fails for the following reasons: 1) The quantum mechanical vacuum on which these particles depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which "this dynamism of empty space is but a formal abstraction lacking physical reality."[1] The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause. 2) Most things we know of in life have beginnings, and those beginnings have causes, so in light of this consistently repeated theme, if it were that we had no observable cause of such particles, the prudent thing to conclude would be that we do not yet know the cause, as opposed to saying there is no cause. Before we knew it was gravity keeping us earth bound didn"t imply there was no cause, it only meant we didn"t yet know the cause. 3) His argument that induction doesn"t provide an answer for future events is negated by the predictive power of past patterns. All particles we see come into being are caused by the quantum field, which predicts that future particles will have the same cause unless or until someone demonstrates that other sources for them exists. We to have evidence that its possible for something to exist without a cause before we can even postulate as a possibility future uncaused particles; so far my opponent hasn"t provided such evidence. 4) If something can come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it is inexplicable why anything and everything does not do so. Why don"t people, televisions, and Eskimo villages pop into being uncaused out of nothing, if this is possible? Pro goes on to argue that the Big Bang isn"t the beginning of the universe, only the beginning of real time, but this rebuttal fails because: 1) The discovery that the universe is in a state of isotropic expansion has led, via a time-reversed extrapolation of the expansion, to the conclusion that at a point in the finite past the entire universe was contracted down to a state of infinite density, prior to which it did not exist. [2] 2) Even if the Big Bang were not the beginning of the universe, it would still be the beginning of the universe in this form in which we know it, having moons, stars, and planets, as well as time. Something began at the Big Bang which necessitates a cause, for if there was no cause, it wouldn"t happen at all. 3) Quentin Smith, a philosopher of science at the University of Western Michigan, says in Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (1993): "It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity entails that it is impossible to extend the spacetime manifold beyond the singularity. This effectively rules out the idea that the singularity is the effect of some prior natural process."[3] Pro argues that identities have neither beginning or end, which is nonsense; the identity "Abraham Lincoln" isn"t still around just because his dust particles are still somewhere on the earth. Pro confuses the identity of a thing to the composite parts that make the thing. Pro then argues that if the universe had a beginning, then so did its cause, but this argument is false because we know the universe began because we have astronomical evidence to prove it; we do not have evidence showing the cause of the universe had a beginning. Finally, how do we know what the cause is? As the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be uncaused because in a timeless environment it could have no prior causes. Ockham's Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe. It must also be personal, for if the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. 1 Alexander W. Stern, "Space, Field, and Ether in Contemporary Physics," Science 116 (1952): 493 2 Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1975), p. 658 3 Quentin Smith, "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe," in Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 120.