Resolved; quantum mechanics do not refute the first premise of Kalam

While he graced the debate with a variety of different sources to support his case, his arguments ultimately fail despite all the bulk up. Pro also failed to rebut some of my main points (which I may delve into later). "Because a-posteriori considerations are in place, it is possible someone in the future may discover something which shows it to be false, or prove it to be true. What I aim to show is that the principle is at least more plausible than its antecedent, given the information we have at hand. " - ProWell most theists I have talked to believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is backed up by a priori assumptions, regardless, we will assume my opponent is correct for the sake of argument. Now, the huge problem with my opponent's argument here is that he is trying to show plausibility instead of necessity(and remember, there are different types of necessity besides strict logical necessity). But the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not:(i) Everything that begins to exist plausibly has a causeIt is. . (ii) Everything that begins to exist must have a causeIt seems Pro is trying to support some version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that I am not familiar with. Now, my opponent says that the first premise is intuitive and nobody should reject it. The problem is, only a principle involving causality at the macroscopic level within space-time is intuitive. The only way to make a claim about everything is to either be omniscient of have a priori support, but my opponent has even conceded that when it comes to the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he isn't using any a priori support. Deterministic Interpretations Eliminating postulates in the measurement process isn't enough to make up for the extreme leap of inferring some type of non-locality to have get a deterministic quantum interpretation. This is simply not a great response to my law of parsimony point. Also, non-locality may play some role currently in physics but not enough to stand behind deterministic interpretations. Pro also quoted one philosopher who doesn't reject the Bohme interpretation like that somehow makes up for all the physicists who do not accept it and accept the Copenhagen Interpretation [1]. The quote my opponent provided from Hilary Putnam simply was not a good argument from authority. Grounds For Quantum Fluctuations Being Uncaused1) My opponent didn't even argue against my point and just referenced a source. 2) and 3) Pro presents a quote from one who argues that intuition plays a huge role in causation. I would agree, causation at the macro-scopic level within space-time is intuitively obvious. However, intuitions have been known to fail us [Video Source]. There is absolutely no grounds for applying a cause beyond space-time, and no grounds for claiming that causality must hold true at the sub-atomic level however. Thus, Pro's argument here definitely has no bearing on the discussion at hand and is utterly irrelevant to say the least. Necessary/ Sufficient Causation"My point is that if something begins to exist with only a necessary cause it is not beginning to exist without a cause. " - ProOnce again, causation requires a casual chain. If there is a break in a chain then there was some point where causality didn't apply. Thus, to say there could be a necessary cause but not a sufficient cause fails to make much sense I'm afraid. Philosopher Wes Morriston explains this better than I, but the point is that causation requires both. If a rock gets skipped for no reason at all, completely uncaused, it wouldn't make sense to say that the event was actually caused by the Earth's existence. However, Earth's existence would be a necessary cause if their was a sufficient cause as well because we would have a causal chainThus, it is simply not true that if something didn't begin to exist out of absolute nothingness, it has to be an event with a cause. Particle and anti-particle pairs can indeed pop in and out of existence of an existing vacuum uncaused, one would only reject this due to an attachment to the God hypothesis. "1) The quantum vacuum would have had to begun to exist otherwise the vacuum would have spawned a universe at every point, meaning our universe would have collided with another universe as soon as it was created. " - ProThis would only be a good response to models where the universe comes into existence from a pre-existing space-time. However, Alexander Vilenkin's model works without inferring any type of of space or time. Plus, the background geometry would decay as the universe comes into being [2] so there isn't any need to imply any other universes. Therefore, this response has no bearing on my argument. My argument is referring to a model where pre-existing space-time is not a factor. "2) Quantum tunneling would form a massive amount of messy singularities which wouldn't even be stable enough to expand into the universe we see today. "Since my opponent didn't defend this, it is nothing more than a bare assertion. Also, he posted a number for a source that doesn't seem to even exist. I do not feel obligated to respond to this. Continued CaseI urge voters to give sources to Pro, I didn't feel like I needed to use many is this debate but regardless Pro definitely deserves the vote here. However, I do not believe he met his burden of proof regarding the debate topic and he failed to respond adequately to my objections. Quantum Mechanics definitely falsifies the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument because it gives us grounds for believing in beginnings without a cause. If the first premise was true, we should find no grounds for rejecting it in reality because it's a principle that must be true, but we do, thus it's safe to say the first premise is a false principle in light of this (the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't worded as an argument simply from plausibility like my opponent claims). Deterministic interpretations have no bearing on the debate either because they violate parsimony and most physicists do not adherer to them anyway. I urge voters to give arguments to Con. I thank my opponent for his time, and for opening my mind on the subject. Source(s)[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.infidels.org... . http://www.youtube.com...