The First Premise if the KCA is Probably True.

Again, I thank Con for instituting this debate.IntuitionCon has misunderstood my argument. I never said that our intuitions are generally correct, I said that we are justified in believing them. I even indicated that our intuitions are not always reliable. But if our intuitions are not reliable, it takes evidence to suggest that we should forsake our intuitions. If someone were to tell you that the universe is an illusion, you would not bear the burden of proof since all you have to go on are your intuitions. The person making that claim would bear the burden of proof. As such, if you are going to make the claim that nothing, or not everything, that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, you bear the burden of proof to show why not. It is simply common sense that everything that exists had a cause of its existence.People were justified in their beliefs that the Earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, etc., because of their observations of the world around them. It wasn't until brilliant men who witnessed how a ship disappeared in the horizon, or that the Earth was the one moving, not the sun, etc., questioned these common views. It was through reason and evidence that they were able to change our common intuitions about the universe.Regarding quantum vacuums and particles, these particles do not pop into existence from nothing uncaused. They pop into existence from the quantum vacuum, which is not "nothing." The quantum vacuum is a sea of transient energy. To claim that these particles come into existence from nothing is to equivocate on the meaning of "nothing," which Sam Harris didn't even buy. [1]Plus, to say that they have no cause is to make an argument from ignorance. Just because we don't know the cause now doesn't mean that we never will. Science's main purpose is to discover answers for our questions. Who's to say science won't one day discover why this happens?Something from Nothing vs. from SomethingCraig offers very compelling evidence for the first premise, which I illuminated in my opening argument (and Con has not illustrated the failings).Con is simply incorrect that we have never observed nothing. We have not observed pure nothing, sure, because it would be impossible to do so. But we can certainly observe that nothing comes from nothing uncaused. After all, nothing just pops into existence uncaused from nothing. Everything on my computer desk exists there because I purchased it and put it there. Nothing on the desk popped into existence, and nothing will, because nothing comes from nothing uncaused. So it is still inexplicable why just anything and everything don't pop into existence uncaused. Why not cars, or trees, or Beethovens? Why only subatomic particles and universes?Plus, even Christians don't argue that absolute nothingness existed. Before the creation of the universe, God existed. So even then absolute nothingness did not exist. When we say "comes into being from nothing," we mean comes into being, uncaused, from no preexisting materials. If I hold my hand out and something were to pop into existence uncaused, that would be coming into existence from nothing, even though my hand exists and the air that is over my hand exists.It's true that people and vans are examples of things coming from nothing, but that's not the point of the first premise. The point is that these things came into existence due to a cause, not uncaused. So whether from nothing or from something, everything that begins to exist has a cause. What the first premise essentially means is that "x begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists." [2]ConclusionCon has not successfully shown why something (or really, anything) could come from nothing uncaused. The arguments I supported last round, that our intuitions tell us it is true (and must be argued against if it is false), something cannot come from nothing, that it is inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing, and that common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1, continue to support the truth of premise 1.I look forward to Con's response.[1] http://www.samharris.org...;[2] http://www.youtube.com...