The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

http://www.youtube.com...Premise 1 Acausality and Quantum FluctuationsPro simply does not understand that a necessary condition is not a necessary cause, unless there is a sufficient cause. He has also failed miserably to establish sufficient causes of quantum fluctuations, and simply makes baseless assertions with regards to equating the quantum vacuum with a cause. The vacuum serves as a necessary condition for these virtual particle fluctuations to occur uncaused, but there is no specific and sufficient cause for why each fluctuation happens when, and where it does. This means, virtual particle fluctuations are most likely governed by acausal laws, even if we do not know for sure. Take this equation for example:delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)If if delta-t is at a tiny enough size, then delta-E can get so extremely huge that it becomes impossible to tell energy conservation has taken a hit or not. This means, it becomes impossible to know if the energy comes from nothing. It is Pro's burden to show that everything that begins to exist has a cause beyond a reasonable doubt. Also:Delta-t is congruent to (h/(4*pi)*delta-E A specific amount of energy (delta-E) can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear [1]. There is evidence that this uncaused emergence of energy happens all the time (as I already provided in the last round). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the first premise of the KCA should not be accepted. Even if these events are not uncaused for sure, Pro has not demonstrated which action occurs each time a fluctuation happens to cause it, or why it must be caused in the first place. The burden is on him to prove causality applies to all of reality, this has not been done. Pro states as well that things at smaller scales effects things at larger scales, so if things at smaller scales are acausal, the macroscopic world would be the same. This is laughably outrageous logic, and fallacious to the furthest extent. Fluctuations at the sub-atomic level may very well indeed be uncaused themselves, but still be the cause of things that happen at larger scales. It seems my opponent is all over the place here, and is having a hard time constructing a very coherent argument. A fallacy my opponent is committing in this debate is switching the burden of proof. Basically, I must show how quantum fluctuations are uncaused, if not, then everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, I only said acausality is theoretically plausible in quantum mechanics, and is adhered to by many physicists. It is his burden to show that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, not mine to show that acausality has to exist. Regardless, Pro wants to know what makes the sub-atomic level so much different than the macroscopic level. Well, the fact that Relativity holds only on average (if at all) at the sub-atomic level, and it always applies at the macroscopic level is one good reason. There are times when we cannot tell for sure whether or not the Conservation of Energy is being violated or not at these scales. This is not the case at the macroscopic level. My opponent is also saying that if I cannot provide a Grand Unified Theory and still deny the supernatural, then I am being irrational and Premise 1 is true. I am almost certain that even the theists on this site reading this cringed at that line of reasoning. The truth is, to establish Premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, one must show that an acausal quantum tunnelling origin does not evade singularity theorems where the laws of physics break down, or is extremely unlikely. In fact, one must show that nothing happens acausaly to establish the first premise. Has this been accomplished? Not by a long shot. Causality and the Hypothetical Limits of Space-TimeI claimed that this acausal quantum origin is theoretically possible, I never claimed this is what happened for sure, or that these laws must stretch past any limits of space-time. My opponent however, has the burden of showing that causality does stretch past the limits of space-time (not just claim it is merely epistemically possible). Pro failed to provide even a probabilistic argument for this notion, and gave no a priori support.Causation is only something we can say for sure exists within space-time and above the sub-atomic level based on experience. This cannot be used to support a premise which involves causation and everything rationally. Also, something can begin to exist, from something, and still not have a cause for this transition from something 1 to something 2. Thus, ex nihilo nihil fit is no a priori support for Premise 1. Ex nihilo nihil fit could be completely true, and Premise 1 could be completely false simultaneously. Premise 2Milesofchange states that by refuting acausality, this refutes the argument from Grunbaum and Swinburne. However, their argument is about what constitutes a proper beginning of an existence, and does not refer to causality. Since Pro has still failed to refute this argument properly, and did not sufficiently refute the definition of "beginning", they stand. Thus, the second premise has been refuted in the context of this debate due to this alone. Pro also says that Alexander Vilenkin's model, and Stephen Hawking's model both constitute some type of beginning. This is more true for Vilenkin's model which implies a space-time boundary, but Hawking's model proposes no boundary of space-time. Either way, Vilenkin's model works without a cause, and needs nothing "transcendent" for it to work (this assertion was just simply assumed by Pro with no justification). The objection to Hawking's model is that it is based on faulty geometry. However, Hawking simply calculated that it is possible for time to behave like another direction of space, he did not say this was for sure the case. Also, Robert J. Spitzer's expertise is not related to physics [2], so quoting him on this matter was a fallacious appeal to authority. Pro's objection here holds little weight in reality. As far as the BVG theorem is concerned, Pro claims this theorem remains undisputed, and that there must be a singularity. This is ridiculously false. Here are two problems:(i) Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton disputed the BVG theorem, in a more sophisticated paper than the BVG paper, called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal". "Aguirre and Gratton have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = - ∞ hypersurface, so the universe expands in both halves of the full de Sitter space." - Borde-Vilenkin-Guth [3](ii) Quantum tunnelling would evade the BVG theorem's prediction of a singularity where the laws of physics break down, by describing the past boundary of the inflating region."Some new physics would be needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. One possibility, would be some kind of quantum creation event." - Borde-Vilenkin-Guth [3](The last part of Pro's argument had to do with fine-tuning, and not the Kalam Cosmological Argument.)ConclusionP1: Pro failed do demonstrate that any causal principle must apply to all of reality. I sourced plenty of esteemed physicists who adhere to spontaneous uncaused quantum beginnings. There are no good reasons to believe that intuitive macroscopic principles necessarily hold true at sub-atomic scales. P2: My opponent did not sufficiently refute the Grunbaum/ Swinburne argument and left the definition I provided for "beginning", untouched. This alone refutes this premise. Pro quoted a non-physicist to rebut Hawking, and the BVG theorem can be evaded easily.The conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has not been established, and I met my burden in undermining is severely. Sources [1] http://www.infidels.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(priest)[3] Video Source (14:30)