The First Premise if the KCA is Probably True.

I wish to thank Con again for his response.I, too, have a correction to make. My first paragraph under the "intuition" heading that reads "It is simply common sense that everything that exists had a cause of its existence," should actually read "it is simply common sense that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence."As I argued first, this will be my last round.IntuitionIt is not shifting the burden of proof to say that if someone is arguing against our intuitions, that they bear the burden of proof. I already gave you the example of our intuitions telling us that the universe exists. If someone is making the claim that the universe doesn't, actually, exist, the onus of proof is on them. Similarly, if someone is going to make the claim that not everything that exists has a cause, they bear the burden of proof to show that they don't.If someone holds an intuition that something may be able to come from nothing, it is only due to not truly understanding what nothing is. Nothing literally does not exist; it has no qualities, no potentialities. To claim that something could possibly come from nothing uncaused is a logically incoherent statement. You might as well believe that two dogs can have sex and produce a car.It was not my intention to use a video. Unfortunately, videos automatically embed in the debate. That video was, in fact, the source my statement came from.Unfortunately, Thunderf00t doesn't really seem to understand how to use logic. The KCA is a perfectly logically valid argument. The only way to refute it is to show one or both of the premises is/are false. Thunderf00t's argument is logically invalid.P1: Objects pushed forward move faster.P2: A can of spam is an object.The only thing that follows from these two premises is:C: A can of spam, when pushed forward, moves faster.If Thunderf00t wishes to support the conclusion, he needs to add at least one additional premise, something like:P3: Objects can move faster than the speed of light.Then the Conclusion would necessarily follow. But then the argument would be unsound, because as Einstein has shown P3 is false. Our intuitions are not necessarily incorrect when dealing with extreme conditions. If everything in the universe had a cause, then the universe itself had a cause. This is simple logic, which Thunderf00t seems to have missed.The bottom line is if our intuitions tells us something is true, we are justified in believing them, even if it turns out they are not. If we were not justified in trusting our intuitions, then we couldn't believe anything, and we couldn't trust in anything. We can't even trust in our scientific observations if we didn't trust our intuitions. Our intuitions are really all we have to base any conclusions off of.Besides, we trust our intuitions because we study the universe and learn from it. Based on common experience, we know that things don't just come into existence uncaused. This is not a "baseless" intuition, it is an intuition which we can observe in the universe around us.Something from Nothing vs. from SomethingCon may define "nothing" as a lack of physical matter and energy, but that is not how Theists define "nothing." Nothing is literally "no thing," not just a lack of physical matter and energy, but nothing literally does not exist. It has no qualities, no potentiality. It is literally just that -- nothing. It's not like a supernatural realm in which can exist in a spiritual state without physical form.No one has ever experienced absolute nothingness. Even before the universe existed, God existed. So there was not a state of absolute nothingness before the universe. So I'm not saying we can believe it despite never have experienced a state of absolute nothingness. But we have experienced that things do not pop into existence uncaused (and Con still has not shown why only subatomic particles and universes can come into existence uncaused). If something were to come into existence uncaused, then we can say that we experienced that. But everything in our experience that began to exist had a cause of its existence. I really don't know how to put it any more simply than this.The example from the objects on my desk was to show that things come into existence with a cause. My computer monitor is there because I purchased it and set it there. It did not pop into existence uncaused. There is an empty space next to it, yet nothing has popped into existence uncaused in that empty spot. To say "we have never experienced nothing" is to confuse the matter. We could not experience a state of nothingness, because we would not exist, but we could experience something coming from nothing uncaused.I am not equivocating on nothing. I mean literally nothing. If something were to pop into existance, uncaused, on my desk, it would not have to be from the "sea of transient energy," it could be from absolute nothing. I suppose the argument could be made that we wouldn't be able to tell, but Con still has not demonstrated why just anything and every couldn't pop into existence uncaused. It's special pleading to assert that it only happens to subatomic particles and universes.ConclusionCon has not successfully demonstrated that appealing to intuition is a bad idea in the first place when talking about extreme conditions. I have shown that his logic in that situation was invalid. Plus, in order to make that assertion in the first place, he must trust his intuitions that tell him his position is the correct one. He is trusting his intuitions that something can come from nothing uncaused. So it seems his argument is self-defeating, in that they can't live up to their own claims of reality.I have successfully shown that while our intuitions are not always reliable, it is fallacious to claim that they are always unreliable. Our intuitions are reliable if they are a result of our experiences, and we know that things don't just come into existence uncaused.