The Kalam Cosmological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

Induction Pro argues that "No observations of absolute beginnings have been made," but this begs the question " is observation the only way to know if something began? We were not there to observe the beginning of human life on this planet, but we know from various dating techniques that the earth is older than the oldest human fossils. http://www.google.com... So we can by induction arrive at the conclusion that human life had a beginning, otherwise we"d find human fossils dating to pre-Cambrian times, even predating the oldest rocks. The mere fact that we can date things is evidence that they had a beginning, and we have been able to put a date on every kind of physical object we can access, not just the earth and the things in it, but even fragments from the moon and stars. http://www.google.com... Since every part of the universe we ever accessed shows evidence of age, it is rational to induce that so does the whole universe. Pro"s objection ignores the beginnings of things we do observe which show that everything around us came from something else. The medicine came from a combination of chemicals, which finds their origin in a combination of particles, which come from a combination of atoms, and we can go on and on into the subatomic world. It stands to reason that the universe also has its origin in some other source based on this pattern which is consistent with everything we know. This is borne out by the scientific model: (1) make an observation: physical things have beginnings (i.e. cars, houses, people, animals, viruses); (2) make a hypothesis: all physical things have beginnings; (3) carry out further observations and experiments to confirm hypothesis: synthesis the pathway to creating randomly selected chemicals, observe as many things on earth and in space, and date them, to see if they have beginnings; (4) confirm the theory based on the gathered data: observational and experimental evidence suggests that all physical things were created out of previous elements existing in the right conditions. I think the problem is that Pro is defining the "stuff"" the universe came from as the universe itself, but surely that would be just as illogical as identifying water as ice before it is even frozen. Before the Big Bang occurred, energy was not yet converted into the form of a universe anymore than water was ice before it was placed in a freezer. The scientific community unanimously agrees that the universe is approximately 13.75 billion years old. How could an entity which always existed have an age? Conflation Pro claims that the existence of a sea of energy as a background to "virtual" particles does not show this "sea" to be their cause, however, what it does vindicate is the philosophical intuition that "out of nothing, nothing comes." This is why I said that the quantum vacuum is not "nothing." Energy cannot be created, only converted in form, so what we observe is the conversion of energy from that sea into visible particles, which means there must be a potentiality of that energy to convert into particles for the particles to come into being. But the particles themselves could not actualize their own existence for the very reason that they did not yet exist. "Nothing" (literal nonexistence) has no potentiality to do anything, only existing things do. So we are justified in concluding that the very nature of that sea of energy, its ability to convert itself into particles, is the cause of the particles, just as the nature of a spider is the cause of its building a web. Things have to follow their nature. Pro says that my reference is unreliable because it is 62 years old, so will Pro"s arguments be unreliable 62 years from now? If so, why not just reject them now and save ourselves the disappointment later? Pro is confusing age with reliability. Einstein"s writings are more than 62 years old yet many of his theories are still considered reliable today. Pythagoras theorem is centuries older than the man I quoted, but it"s still reliable today. Similar comments could be made of Isaac Newton and many others. Equivocation Pro accused me of equivocating gravity and quantum fluctuations, but I did no such thing, rather, I suggested that just because we at one time didn"t know what was keeping us from falling off this round earth and dropping into the sky, didn"t mean there was no cause. Gravity was found out to be the cause. Yet Pro makes the wild assertion that if we don"t yet know the cause of particles appearing in a quantum vacuum that therefore there is no cause. This is a claim to knowledge of the future, that no cause will ever be discovered. Is Pro psychic? Is he God? Is the entire technological future of mankind before his eyes that he can make such judgments? The prudent scientist is humble enough to admit he doesn"t know, the foolish one claims we will never know. Pro"s must be using the nothing-of-the-gaps argument: Because we don"t know the cause for something, therefore, nothing did it - it was completely spontaneous. Recent breakthroughs in our understanding of things that previously mystified scientists for centuries should warrant more caution and less dogmatic assertions. Otherwise, Pro should have made arguments for the reliability of his "crystal ball." Unreliable source Pro calls Quentin Smith unreliable because he is a philosopher and not a physicist, but this man is a philosopher of Science. First, one must have a great understanding of science to gain a PhD in this field; second, Pro never showed any superiority of Physics over the philosophy of Science; and third, Pro never refuted what I quoted from Smith about the inability of the time-space continuum to extend beyond the singularity. Pro admitted that the Big Bang was the beginning of real time, which proves Smith"s point because the space-time continuum cannot exist before the Big Bang for the simple reason that time did not yet exist! How could space-time exist without time? Pro says Hawking contradicted Smith, but never proved Hawking was right with arguments. Timeless Cause Pro admitted the Big Bang was the beginning of time, so the cause of the universe must have existed outside linear time " atemporally. Common sense holds that if energy was unchanged before the Big Bang, it would remain so once undisturbed, and Pro"s ASSUMPTIONS that perpendicular time dimensions, probability wave collapse, imaginary time, and higher-dimensional space-time actually exist are just that " ASSUMPTIONS for which he gave no supporting arguments. Spontaneous Generation Pro"s inconsistent logic says that because of the nature of spontaneous particles, a grain of sand can"t pop into existence uncaused, yet he believes the entire universe could! If the conversion of energy into particles in a quantum field is an absolute beginning as Pro claims, then the conversion of energy into particles at the Big Bang which later became matter is equally an absolute beginning. Big Bang cosmology holds that the fundamental elements had to form first before matter could exist. The fine-tuning of the universe does imply the universe had a cause because of the high probability that an uncaused universe would be random and could not be this fine-tuned; as such it is within the scope of this debate and Pro should not be excused for avoiding it.