The First Premise if the KCA is Probably True.

Before I begin, I would like to make a small correction on my sources from last round. The link given for my source number 3 was intended to support my statement about wave-particle duality. The correct link for the paragraph with the citation is this: . http://en.wikipedia.org.... Sorry about that, folks. Intuition Pro argues that although our intuitions are often unreliable, we are still justified in believing them until we are given evidence that shows we should forsake our intuitions. This is basically an attempt to shift the burden of proof as, according to Pro, any person challenging intuition must prove this claim. A brief tangent: Who’s intuition are we to go by anyway? Given that people come from different backgrounds it is easy to see how different people could have different feelings, different intuitions, about an issue. It is therefore that I ask this question. For indeed my intuition tells me that we cannot know whether something can or cannot come from nothing. I have already demonstrated why our intuition has been repeatedly been shown to be a poor guide when attempting to evaluate the truth. In this round, I would like to offer specific reasons for believing that our intuition would be incorrect in certain instances about this issue. . http://www.youtube.com... Seeing as Pro used a video in his previous response, I feel that it is justified to attach one to my argument. Don’t feel you need to watch it, I just wanted to give the source that source that I came across this point, just as my opponent has done. In the video, Thunderf00t presents the following syllogism in a style somewhat parallel to the KCA: P1. Objects pushed forward move faster. P2. A can of spam is an object. C. Therefore, a can of spam traveling at light speed pushed forward will move faster than light speed. We know the conclusion is incorrect. So what’s wrong with the syllogism? P1 is supported by our intuition and all of our personal experiences. As is pointed out in the video, our intuition tends to be incorrect when we are dealing with the very small or the very fast or other extreme conditions. An occurrence like the beginning of the universe, the subject of the KCA, is certainly an extreme condition. I agree with Pro that as we learn more about the universe, our intuitions change. But, I think it is fallacious and an appeal to ignorance to then say that because we do not yet completely understand the beginning of the universe or quantum events we should stick with our ignorance and say that it is more probable that our intuitions are correct. As Lawrence Krauss states in the interview my opponent cited: “‘easy’ does not always coincide with “true. ” Once again, my mantra: The Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. ” So it is, that just because our intuitions tell us something, what is easy, these intuitions themselves have no bearing on fact. Regarding Laurence Krauss and Sam Harris and particles and the like, I am confused in which part of the interview Harris disagrees with Krauss on his points. Harris is merely asking questions to clarify and Krauss himself acknowledges that there are different kinds of nothing and he proceeds to elaborate on the different meanings. Something from Nothing vs. from Something The first thing I would like to do here is to state that by nothing, I mean a lack of physical matter and energy. That is, of course, unless I specify that I mean otherwise in a specific instance. Pro writes: “Craig offers very compelling evidence for the first premise, which I illuminated in my opening argument (and Con has not illustrated the failings). ” The only evidence from Craig that Pro offered in R1 was three unsupported assertions. I pointed out that the assertions were unfounded because we have never experienced nothing. Pro, however, disputes the contention that we have never experienced nothing. He writes: “Con is simply incorrect that we have never observed nothing. We have not observed pure nothing, sure, because it would be impossible to do so. But we can certainly observe that nothing comes from nothing uncaused. After all, nothing just pops into existence uncaused from nothing. Everything on my computer desk exists there because I purchased it and put it there. So it is still inexplicable why just anything and everything don't pop into existence uncaused. ” He seems to agree that we have never observed nothing in the sense I described above, which is what I originally meant when I said we have never experienced nothing, but he still says we have observed nothing. I therefore encourage him to explain what he meant in discussing the kind of nothing we have observed. Additionally, I’m not sure why my opponent has brought the objects on his desk into the discussion. I do not dispute that those items came into existence due to a cause, yet all of those are examples of one form of something coming beginning to exist as something else. Pro further asks why if he holds out his hand, there is no magical beginning of existence if something can come from nothing. But certainly this would not be a creation from nothing for as my opponent and Dr. Craig on numerous occasions have taken the time to point out vacuums, much less everyday empty space is hardly nothing in the sense I previously described. Craig often accuses atheists of equivocating over the term nothing, but in equating the empty space we see to nothing, Pro is doing just that. If this is the definition of nothing Pro wishes to utilize, then he cannot deny that quantum fluctuations in this state of “nothing” are not counter examples to the premise. Conclusion I have demonstrated that appealing to intuition is a bad idea in the first place and that it is an especially bad idea when talking about extreme conditions. In the previous round, my opponent failed to provide any more evidence that something cannot come from nothing beyond making unfounded and irrelevant assertions.