The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

Causality and Predictability http://www.youtube.com... My opponent is accusing me of confusing the concepts of causality and predictability. As Pro alludes to, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle describes the inability to predict the location and speed of sub-atomic particles at the same time, it is also true however that this opens the door for the commonly acknowledged notion of acausality in modern physics. The quantum vacuum is known as a necessary condition which needs to be in place for these virtual particle fluctuations to occur, however there is no sufficient cause for any of the fluctuation's beginnings that occur within the vacuum. Without a sufficient cause, there is nothing we can describe as causality taking place (as philosopher Wes Morriston pointed out) [1]. A necessary condition allowing for something to occur, can not be considered a necessary cause rationally unless a sufficient explanation is also present as well. However, these fluctuations occur without any reason for why each one occurs at the time or place that it does, unlike the workings above at the macroscopic level. This validates the notion that things can happen without a provoking trigger (a cause) as long as there is a necessary condition in place which allows for this to occur. Therefore, I'm not confusing acausality with indeterminacy. I'm simply demonstrating that this type of indeterminacy opens the door for acausality and implies it heavily. So my opponent is presenting non-existent problems with my argument. The main point is that the laws of physics allow for these events to occur without a cause and this is a commonly accepted interpretation. If there was really a law of causality in science worth taking seriously at the sub-atomic level, then this view wouldn't be so adhered to amongst such esteemed physicists, and would have been thrown in the junkyard. Alexander Vilenkin is one of the United State's most respected physicists for example, and his model of comic origins describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event, with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0), from a symmetrical state of zero energy, void of space-time [2]. On this, he says:"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Alexander Vilenkin [3]Of course, a symmetrical quantum state of zero energy, void of space-time is not the "metaphysical nothingness" discussed by the likes of Aristotle. This is irrelevant however, because there would be only a necessary explanation, and not a sufficient explanation for the cosmic birth in question. Just like there is no "half of a pregnancy", there is no "half of a causal process" either. The cosmic origins being described would be allowed by the laws of physics, this just shouldn't be the case if the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument was true. The problem for Pro here is that he is appealing to intuition gained at the macroscopic level and trying to apply it to quantum mechanics, which is an extremely counter-intuitive domain. This is not only fallacious reasoning, but it is utterly absurd. [4]Acausality and Logic/ RationalityMy skepticism with regards to any causal principles is limited to:(i) The sub-atomic level(ii) Beyond the hypothetical limits of space-time Since this is as far as it extends, my opponent's claim that accepting acausality in certain areas is self-defeating, is a blunder of epic proportions. Events at the sub-atomic level simply don't behave like events above it, and any quantum physicist worth taking seriously would agree with me. This means, one can abandon causality in particular areas and still be perfectly logical, because causality does not have to be abandoned with regards to areas where we know it holds. To support the first premise of this argument, one must show that there are sufficient explanations for each virtual particle fluctuation that occurs at the sub-atomic level (in order to establish a proper causal process), and that causation itself stretches past any hypothetical limits of space-time. Without this, it simply would not be rational to accept that everything that begins to exist has a cause. There is no foundation for such a claim, and my opponent bears a heavy burden of proof that has not been met.Pro also states:"The Con cannot get away with any assertions that the Higgs Field has been validated. These assertions are still purely theoretical and cannot in any shape or form evidence of random fluctuation-even if we (somehow) know it was non-causal instead of uncertainly." - ProOne does not need to appeal to the Higgs Field. Quantum fluctuations ae experimentally virified. The Lamb shift [5] and the Casimir-Polder force [6] conclude the existence of virtual particle fluctuations, and no physicist denies this.The Planck Epoch and a BeginningTo deny the fact that there is a finite past involving time itself as a whole would be to appeal to an infinite regress of time. Thus, I see no reason why my opponent would challenge me on the fact that the earliest period of time as a whole, was the Planck Epoch. It is senseless to do if one is a theist trying to prove the Kalam at least. Anyway, Grunbaum and Swinburne's argument has not been touched, and remains unscathed. We know that things begin to exist, not necessarily because there is a finite past of said thing, but because we can theoretically pin point a time when it didn't exist. I didn't exist in 1985 for example, this is how I know I began to exist. This isn't the case for the universe if there is a finite past time itself which exists as long as the universe does. Also, I failed to see a response to Stephen Hawking's no-boundary proposal, thus it stands.Now, Pro claimed that scientists admit that the laws of physics break down at a singularity, and that this implies the supernatural. This is mind bogglingly false. Cosmologists and physicists believe that once quantum mechanics gets introduced into the picture, the idea of a singularity most likely becomes obsolete. Singularities are predicted on a strictly Relativity based Big Bang model, neglecting quantum effects. This means, the beginning of the universe could easily be described by the laws of physics (for example, Alexander Vilenkin's model). The key, is quantum mechanics. "These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Philosopher of Physics, Quentin Smith [7] We do not have a clear picture without a Grand Unified Theory. However, Quantum Tunnelling in this sense evades singularity theorems.ConclusionPro didn't establish that everything that begins to exist has a cause. He must prove that each virtual particles has a specific, and sufficient explanation to demonstrate a causal process, and that causation itself stretches past the hypothetical limits of space-time to meet such a heavy burden. Pro also dodged Grunbaum and Swinburne's argument, and Stephen Hawking's proposal. Thus, neither premise has been established, and both premises have been undermined to the point of no return. Sources[1] http://commonsenseatheism.com...[2] Alexander Vilenkin: “tunneling from literally nothing”, 1982,1988 paper [3] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)[4] Included Video[5] http://physics.aps.org...[6] http://www.scientificamerican.com... [7] http://www.infidels.org...