The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Premise 1: Whatever Begins To Exist Has A CausePremise 1 does not support sufficient causation, as it just states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not a sufficient cause. Also, if something comes from something, that self-evidently means that if there is something that comes into being, then this coming into being must have been dependant on something which preceded it. However, once more, this speaks nothing on sufficient causation unless that addition is specifically included in the equation.Now, my opponent questions the existence of virtual particles. However, they have been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates[1]. To deny the reality of virtual particles, one has to deny scientific experiment. He also claims that the conclusion of virtual particles beginning to exist without a sufficient cause depends on indeterministic interpretations (like the Copenhagen interpretation), which is true. What reasons to do we have to accept indeterministic interpretations over deterministic ones? Well, deterministic interpretations require non-local hidden variables. However, quantum mechanics works without the assumption of non-local hidden variables causing virtual particles. This means, that deterministic interpretations violate Occam's Razor. Deterministic interpretations are simply contrived ad hoc to get around the problem of quantum randomness. Not only that, but deterministic interpretations entail realism. However, local non-realism is confirmed by violation of Bell's inequalities[2], and non-local non-realism is demonstrated by violations of Leggett's inequalities, and the before-before experiment[3]. So, while the first premise is true, it is trivially true. This because we have no reason to think that sufficient causation is required for something to begin to exist (quantum mechanics shows that it is not). Without sufficient causation as a requirement, we have no creation event as a requirement. Ex nihilo nihil fit only makes a necessary cause required pertaining to something beginning to exist. Premise 2: The Universe Began To ExistPro claims that no beginning means an infinite past. However, that is not an argument against an infinite past. I already showed in my last round why his argument against an infinite past failed. Since pro did not respond to it, we can consider his argument here a dud. My opponent objects to B-Theory on the basis that it makes time travel in the past in possible, which is impossible. However, information travelling to the past is not only possible, but confirmed by experiment[4]. A wave-function will collapse before anyone makes an observation. Pro mentions the grandfather paradox, but these paradoxes are in no way necessary when dealing with backwards time travel:"There's a famous story, I think originating with Richard Feynman, about the time traveler who goes back in time and, in an adaptation of the grandmother-killing scenario, decides to shoot his younger self to see what would happen. He takes a rifle with him, seeks out his younger self and raises the rifle to shoot through the heart. But his aim isn't very good, it's a little bit wobbly, so he hits his younger self in the shoulder instead, merely wounding him. The reason his aim isn't so good is because he's got this shoulder wound from an earlier shooting incident! So you see, it's possible to conceive of temporal loops of that sort without encountering a paradox." - Paul Davies[5]Also, the Minkowski space-time interpretation of Relativity does not just entail that the past is real (Growing Block Theory), but that the future is real as well:“Once we know that your ‘now’ can be what I consider the past, or your ‘now’ can be what I consider the future, and your ‘now’ is as every bit as valid as my ‘now’, then we learn that the past must be real, the future must be real… The past, present, and future are all equally real; they all exist.” – Brian Greene[6]Thus, Relativity supports B-Theory; not Growing Block Theory. ConclusionAll of Pro's arguments fail. The resolution has been negated. Sources[1] http://math.ucr.edu...[2] http://phys.org...[3] http://www.quantumphil.org...[4] http://www.popsci.com...[5] http://www.edge.org...[6] Video Sourcehttp://www.youtube.com...