The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

Premise 1 Now, my opponent says there is an unbroken Law of Causality with regards to science. This of course, is utterly without foundation. Pro quotes a scientific pioneer Francis Bacon in an attempt to back up this notion. However, Francis Bacon was not alive to study quantum mechanics, and it is well accepted by most modern physicists that many quantum events happen in an indeterministic mannor, acausally (although there many deterministic interpretations, most of them are not adhered to). A vacuum fluctuation for example, is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused and spontaneously emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi). Here are a couple of supporting quotes by modern scientists: "Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [1]"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist [2] Now, Con also quotes David Hume claiming that it would be absurd to claim something could happen without a cause. However, here is another quote from Hume:"Contiguity in time and place is therefore a requisite circumstance to the operation of all causes"- David Hume [3] However, according to this, space-time could not have had a cause because all causes are contingent to space-time itself. So, it seems there is some confusion with regards to Hume's position on causality. Now, my opponent presents a fairly outrageous claim:."To deny the Law of Causality is to deny is to deny rationality" - ProWhat is this based on exactly? Science is done all the time involving quantum mechanics, rationally, all while assuming acausal laws. So if my opponent is to present a compelling case, I am afraid quoting scientists and philosophers from many hundreds of years ago is not going to cut it in light of modern science. Even if we assume this so called Law of Causality is a scientific principle worth taking seriously, does science stretch past the limits of space-time? I would argue it could, however this is not a position which helps the theist much. Therefore, quoting any hypothetical causal principles involving science does absolutely nothing to support the notion of space-time and energy needing a cause itself. Due to the reasons above, I believe my opponent has not even come close to establishing the first premise. There is absolutely no good reason to accept this premise, and modern science undermines it extensively. Premise 2My opponent here, presents the typical support for Premise 2 of the argument. There must have been a finite past philosophically, and The Big Bang demonstrates a finite past scientifically. However, does a finite past automatically equate to a true beginning? I think not. Philosophers such as Atheist Adolf Grunbaum and Theist Richard Swinburne have argued that something only "begins to exist" if there was a time earlier in which it did not exist (which makes sense based on experience). This wouldn't apply to the universe however, because the Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time [4], so there could not have been a time earlier in which the universe did not exist. This would mean, that even though there was a finite past of the universe, this doesn't necessitate that it "began to exist". Also, take this common definition of beginning for example:"be·gin·ning/biˈginiNG/ Noun: The point in time or space at which something starts. " [5]How could energy and space-time itself, have a starting point within space-time? This seems like a strange notion for sure. Also, Stephen Hawking calculated that time can behave like another direction of space, and even though there is a finite past there may not be an actual boundary. This would mean that the universe did not have an actual beginning (which the BVG theorem does not rule out).The main criticism to this is Hawking's use of "imaginary numbers", however there is no reason to think they are not useful in explaining reality. "[Imaginary numbers] turn out to be invaluable in many applications of mathematics to engineering, physics, and almost every other science. Moreover, these numbers obey all the rules which you already know for ‘real’ numbers” - John Conway and Richard Guy [6]So not only are there philosophical notions to not believe a finite past of the universe necessitates a true beginning (Adolf Grunbaum and Richard Swinburne), but scientific reasons as well (Stephen Hawking). This means, that the Second Premise of the argument remains without sufficient support. Premise 3Since there are no good reasons to accept either premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, then this conclusion is meaningless. Additional AspectsPro claims that if God doesn't exist, then why is there something rather than nothing? However, this assumes "nothing" is a default state of existence without any justification. Regardless, even though there are no good reasons to think the universe had a cause, I will rebut my opponent's claims here anyway. "•Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite from a material perspective;" - ProMy opponent uses the word "he" without warrant. Something can be self-existent, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial without being linked with any sentience at all (let alone a specific sex). Thus, this does nothing to establish God in the slightest. "•Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing;" - ProWho said the universe came from absolutely nothing? There is certainly no scientific evidence to support this claim. Either way, something being unimaginably powerful does nothing to solidify the existence of a sentient being. A black hole is more powerful than any being I have ever encountered, but surely nobody believes in it sentient. Since extreme power does not equate to sentience, this argument does nothing to establish God either."•Supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision (we can't talk more about the complexity of life, non-life, and the Universe itself." - ProJust because intelligent beings can create things which are complex with precision, doesn't mean that all things which seem complex and produced with precision were made by an intelligent being, or beings. This would be like saying that because Asians can do calculus, every time calculus is done, it was because of an Asian. Thus, no amount of complexity or apparent "precision" can be used to defend the idea of a God. "•Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices)" - ProA choice is not required for something to cause something else to exist. Tectonic plates moving cause mountains to begin to exist, and chemical processes in clouds cause snowflakes to begin to exist. Choices are not required."WHO MADE THE CREATOR (OR CAUSER) ??" - Pro I do not find the "who designed the designer" argument to compelling. Thus, I do not feel compelled to defend it here. Conclusion All of my opponent's arguments were extremely weak and not compelling at all. The main premises of this argument have not been established, and I undermined them sufficiently.Sources[1] http://atheism.about.com...[2] http://www.infidels.org...[3] David Hume, "An Abstract of A Treatise of Human Nature', in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Bobbs-Merril, 1955), pp. 186-7.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [6] The Book of Numbers, pg. 212