Resolved; quantum mechanics do not refute the first premise of Kalam

I will not need too much room as far as this exchange is concerned...Opening ArgumentIn this debate, I will be showing that even if quantum fluctuations don't occur from nothing, and even if there are deterministic interpretations, quantum mechanics still disproves the first premise (I will not be rebutting any of my opponent's specific claims in this round, as this is my opening argument). Why do I say this? Well for one, theists seem to believe that something can begin to exist, even if it doesn't begin to exist from nothing. For example, a chair begins to exist, even though it's not from nothing. Thus, even if quantum fluctuations aren't from nothing, if it's possible that they are uncaused, then the first premise is still falsified. Theistic arguments about quantum fluctuations not actually coming from nothing are irrelevant, because they still "begin to exist" according to theistic standards. If the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument was "everything that begins to exist from nothing must have a cause" then sure, quantum mechanics may not undermine or falsify the first premise. Since this is not the case, any argument about how quantum fluctuations don't come from nothing is utterly useless as far as this debate is concerned. Now many theists will argue that since there are other deterministic interpretations, this would mean that one shouldn't claim that Quantum Fluctuations are uncaused. Of course, this is another irrelevant argument, I will explain why...The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument isn't "everything that begins to exist probably has a cause", or "everything that begins to exist most likely has a cause", it's "Everything that begins has a cause". Since this is supposedly backed up by a priori assumptions, then a more in depth version of the first premise is:"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" [1]Therefore, this infers that everything that begins to exist necessarily has a cause. Therefore, all the other deterministic interpretations are completely irrelevant. The very fact that the laws of physics allow for uncaused events to occur disproves the first premise. This is true even in light of interpretations where quantum fluctuations really are caused by something non-locally, it simply doesn't matter. The fact that these indeterministic interpretations which involve quantum fluctuations occurring uncaused even exist, disproves the first premise because this means it's possible that these fluctuations are uncaused even if we don't know whether they are or not. If it's possible that Quantum Fluctuations are uncaused, then this falsifies that notion that everything that begins necessarily (must) has/ have a cause. This is because if everything that begins to exist necessarily had a cause, then the laws of physics wouldn't allow for these events to occur uncaused and no scientist would adhere to it because it would be a true principle. However, the laws of physics do allow for these events to occur uncaused, and there are many scientists who adhere to this notion, so the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is clearly a false principle. Therefore, the claim that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is false. Supporting Quotes"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the quantum realm this holds only on average...An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the imagination."" - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [2]"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature..." - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist [3] "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility" - Heinz Pagals. American Physicist, an adjunct Professor of Physics at Rockefeller University [3] Now, a vacuum fluctuation is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi). However, Alexander Vilenkin's model of comic origins [4] describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). Basically, there are equations which rely on acausal principles which could plausibly describe the beginning of the universe. The very fact that these comply with the laws of physics, disproves the claim that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument regarding causality involves a principle that must hold true everywhere, regardless of any deterministic interpretations. Thus, Quantum Mechanics refutes the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.ConclusionI have shown that even if quantum fluctuations do not occur from absolute nothingness, and even if deterministic interpretations exist, the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. This is because the first premise is inferring a principle that must hold true, and necessarily holds true. However, since it's possible that the quantum fluctuations are uncaused and this is allowed by the laws of physics, the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false (it cannot both be true that x is necessary, and -x is possible). Sources[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...[2] http://atheism.about.com...[3] http://www.infidels.org...[4] Alexander Vilenkin: “tunneling from literally nothing”, 1982,1988 paper