The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Thank you RT. Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause: RT:"a specific fluctuation will have no sufficient cause for why it occurs and happens spontaneously"Does no sufficient cause means unknown cause ? for we also plenty of things we don't know the exact cause, but still would assume there is a cause. and these although they don't seem to have sufficient cause to fluctuate the way they do, they still have enough cause to fluctuate in the first place, so the cause of the beginning of the fluctuation is there, only the form it takes doesn't seem to have a specific cause.So your counter example isn't compatible with KCA first premise, it isn't for the beginning of the event, but for its couse which isn't our topic. RT:""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"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist"This seems to be a statement from ignorance, we don't know the cause therefore there is no cause ?! what is then the evidence there is no cause at all, what if we just happen to ignore the cause ?! is it even rational to consider these things may begin to happen spontaneously without sufficient cause, and even better without any cause ?! How can anyone even know there is absolutely no cause ? RT: " a sentient being's choices do involve a combination of factors."Good remark Rational , but you see, it's not the combination of factors that cause the sentient being to sit or stand, but his will is what creates the combination of factors.When I split the causes in two categories, it's because there are beginings who are directly caused by a sentient being, and others that are indirectly caused by a sentient being, for these last, it would seem that a combination of factors lead to the beginning of the event, but this never means there is no sentient being behind it. Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist RT: "if A-Theory is false, then the universe did not begin to exist. Therefore, premise 2 here is in deep trouble indeed"The universe began to exist, whether A-theory of time is true or false. I was born, and I will die, these are facts and they do not depend on what theory of time you want to use.Let's assume B-theory of time is the most adequate, the universe didn't begin to exist doesn't follow from the past ,present and future being equally real! the equal reality of time doesn't equate the nature of the events, nor does it equate the dates. it just says the past events exist as much as the present and future events do, not more. RT: "a starting point coming into being from no starting point" does not follow from "a starting point" It's rather : " a universe came into being , and that very event is the starting point for the time we agree to use" Premise 3: The Universe Has A CauseYou didn't succeed to show that the universe doesn't need a cause, or if it needed a cause, that the cause doesn't need to be sentient. and I did show already that the universe can only be as it is as the fruit of a sentient being work.In conclusion: you put too much salt in your dish.