The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

However, his arguments still fail on many counts. Appeal To Ignorance About Virtual Particles Being UncausedPro accuses me of appealing to ignorance by claiming that just because we have no idea what a cause could be, that doesn't mean that there is no cause. Well, any cause would have to be a hidden variable, or else we would detect a cause like everything else. However, local hidden variables were rules out by Bell's Inequalities[1]. The question that remains pertains to whether or not there could be non-local hidden variables. Tests of Leggett's inequalities by Zeilinger in 2007 falsified non-local hidden variables, and all Leggett models that entail "realism" (and thus non-local hidden variables) have been ruled out [2]. The above shows that it is not just that we don't know of a causes; causes have been ruled out by scientific experiment. There used to be loopholes around these types of conclusions, but since 2005 we have learned a lot more about quantum mechanics than ever before, and I just showed why deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics should be dead ideas. The Vacuum Is Not NothingPro claims that the vacuum is not nothing, well even though Alexander Vilenkin uses the term "nothing", he doesn't mean absolute nothingness:"[T]he state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subject to these laws. The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe. " - Alexander Vilenkin[3] Pro's mistake is thinking that if something is uncaused, that means it must have come from absolutely nothing. However, most people intuitively take a cause to be a sufficient condition, and not just a necessary condition. For example, if a ball flies in the air and someone asks what caused it, the answer would be someone throwing it. The act of throwing is sufficient for the ball to be in the air. However, if someone said that cause was the atmosphere, that would be rather bizarre. Even though that action couldn't take place without the atmosphere, it is just a necessary condition. Similarly, the quantum vacuum is an unstable necessary condition which has an inherent function which allows for the spontaneous creation of virtual particles. Even though the virtual particles do not come from nothing, they are still uncaused as there is only an unstable necessary condition in the equation, with no sufficient causation. A summary of Philosopher Wes Morriston's view is as follows:"How could it be that necessary, but not sufficient, conditions can cause something to come into existence? Causation requires both. "[4]Pro must show why we should go with his view of causality, over the more intuitive one (Pro must show that God exists based off the the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I only have to undermine his arguments, not falsify them). Quantum TunnellingPro claims that quantum tunnelling is an assumption. Even if it is, he has the burden of proof, so he has to show this position false. Either way, it is not a leap of faith or an assumption but a well tested fact [5]. The only leap of faith here is God, and Pro has given no reasons to believe God exists. The Laws Of Nature Existing Outside Of NatureI agree that the laws of nature existing outside of nature is incoherent. However, in Vilenkin's model, the universe isn't all of nature. Spacetime and energy would only be part of nature, and be contingent upon a timeless and spaceless background governed by laws of nature. The The Wheeler–De Witt equation tells us that at its core, time is not needed for quantum laws. Also Quantum Eraser experiments (as recent as 2013) show that certain quantum events don’t depend on space-time:“In a certain sense, quantum events are independent from space and time. ” - Physicist Anton Zeilinger[6]Additionally, there are physics papers which discuss quantum mechanics without a background space-time: “Quantum mechanics without spacetime IV : a noncommutative Hamilton-Jacobi equation” [7] The idea that the tunnelling event needs a background space-time is simply unconvincing, and I’m not aware of any physicist that hold that position because it doesn’t seem to be true at all. Thus, Vilenkin's model is more than plausible. Is The First Premise Self-Evident? The first premises is clearly not an axiom, or self-evident. It if was, then so many physicists wouldn't reject it (I quoted many physicists who rejected the first premise in my first round). Philosophers reject it as well, take Quentin Smith:"Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. " - Quentin Persifor Smith. American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan. [8]Too many prominent and respected people in their field deny this for it to be self-evident. Thus, Pro's claim that this premise is self-evident is not even close to convincing. Pro hasn't argued why something has to come from nothing, in order to be uncaused. Even if he does accomplish this, he hasn't even shown why it is irrational to assume that something can come from nothing. I cam not saying something can come from nothing, but I'm not sure Pro has completely ruled it out. If Something Can Come From Nothing, Why Don't We See It Everywhere In The Universe? Pro has not argued in favor of the position that if something could come from nothing, that we would expect to see it in the universe. Thus, this line of questioning appears rather trivial. The Universe Beginning To Exist With Time And SpacePro claims:"With Big Bang it is not only the universe (matter and energy) begin to exist, but also time and space. " - ProThis is the bare-assertion fallacy. Pro hasn't actually supported the assertion that the Big Bang implies the universe came into being. In my first round, I argued that Pro would have to show that there was a "prior" to the first moment of the universe at which the universe did not exist in order to prove his case; he has not done this. The Eternal CausePro has not even established his case for a cause of the universe, but even if he has, why must the cause be God? Just because the cause must be atemporally eternal, that doesn't mean it has to be God. If one reads the debate outline, they can clearly see that the burden of proof lies on Pro to show that God exists by used the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is safe to say that this hasn't been accomplished. ConclusionPro has the burden of proof to show that God exists from the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Not only has Pro not supported Premise 1 properly, but my argument undermining Premise 2 went completely untouched; thus he essentially concedes it. The resolution has not been established, and I have undermined the Kalam Cosmological Argument sufficiently. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_theorem #Bell_inequalities[2] . http://www.quantumphil.org...[3] Many Worlds in One (2006), Page 181[4] . http://commonsenseatheism.com...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://phys.org...[7] . http://arxiv.org...[8] Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism: Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists by Quentin Smith (from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 2. )