The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

IntroductionI appreciate my opponent's response. However, it is based on numerous misunderstandingsPremise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A CauseMy opponent assumes without justification that there is just an unknown cause with regards to certain quantum events. However, it is not that there us an unknown cause, it is that there is no cause at all. Not only have experiments not picked up any cause where there should be when there are causes of events, but Bell's Theorem proved that there could not be any local hidden variables doing any causing[1]. The only way for there to be a cause for these fluctuations, is if there are non-local hidden variables. However, this would require a deterministic interpretation. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is inderministic, and deterministic interpretations are ad hoc and violate Occam's Razor which makes them far less plausible. Regardless, the burden of proof is on my opponent to show that the first premise is true. Therefore, she has to disprove deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (or at least argue for why these interpretations are more plausible), and show why the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong. She has not done this. Therefore, we are left without any reason to believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is actually true. I quoted physicists who reject this first premise that my opponent erroneously claims is so close to science. Many philosophers think this premise is false as well, not just physicists:"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[2]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)[3]. Here are some more supporting quotes:"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." - Paul Davies[4]This means that energy can begin to exist without any prior determining causes. This is why it is rather laughable that my opponent has argued that some causal principle is fundamental to science and philosophy. This causal principle is commonly rejected in science and philosophy. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics outright rejects this causal principle and actually invokes acausal principles, and it is the most adhered to interpretation. My opponent must show why the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, which seems like a hard task to achieve (the fluctuations are only caused if deterministic interpretations are true). I have shown why these deterministic interpretations are problematic in an explanatory sense. Not only that, she did not even give any reason to believe this causal principle is true in the first place. Thus, even if she shows that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, she still has to give a reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause. As it stands, we are left with no reason to believe this causal principle is true, and we have good reasons to believe it is false. Also:"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." - ProMy opponent commits the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. Neural activity causes conscious states, and I even provided sources to back this up in my last round. Neural activity can be traced in the brain seconds before its causal effects reach a human's consciousness. Since causes come before their effects, then we know that neural activity is what causes conscious states and not the other way around. Therefore, my opponent is mistaken. Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist"The universe began to exist, whether A-theory of time is true or false." - ProThe above is false, as my opponent does not understand B-Theory. If B-Theory is true, then the universe is tenseless and eternal because temporal becoming is just an illusion. This means that The Big Bang would just exist as a fixed point on 4d or n +1d block, and the universe would never actually come into being at The Big Bang. Therefore, if the B-Theory is true, then premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. The universe did not begin to exist. I gave many reasons to believe that the B-Theory of time is true. "I was born, and I will die, these are facts and they do not depend on what theory of time you want to use."My opponent's birth was just as real as her future death, and is just a real as right now though (I even provided quotes from leading physicists in the field to back this up with, which is based on Special Relativity). This means that she never began to exist, nothing begins to exist. Something can only begin to exist if the A-Theory of time is true. Since my opponent does not seem to have a grasp on the metaphysics of time, I think it is clear that her arguments are worthless to say the least. Until my opponent proves that the A-Theory of time is true, then we have no reason to believe the universe began to exist. "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!"Yes it does. Things can only come into being if temporal becoming is real. If the past, present, and future are all equally real, then time is tenseless and temporal becoming is an illusion. This means, that things only appear to come into being, but ontologically, nothing comes into being. Once more, my opponent just does not understand B-Theory and its implications. Her arguments can be dismissed based on her misunderstanding. "It's rather : " a universe came into being , and that very event is the starting point for the time we agree to use"- ProMy opponent has not supported her claim that the universe began to exist with anything. This makes the above rather trivial. Even if all of my arguments fail (which they do not), my opponent still loses because she has not supported either of the premises. ConclusionFruitytree has given no reasons to believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, I gave plenty of reasons to believe it is false that were not properly objected to. Fruitytree also has given no reasons to believe that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, I gave plenty of reasons to believe it is false that were not properly objected to. My opponent has not even shown that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are true, and she has not shown how the B-Theory of time is false (the theory that has to be false in order for the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be true). As it stands, the resolution has been negated. Sources[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.secularhumanism.org...[3] http://www.infidels.org...[4] Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks