The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

The conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests upon both P1 and P2 being true. Therefore, if I can cast sufficient doubt on at least one of the premises then the argument does not succeed. I am going to focus on P2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. ---P2: The Universe Began To Exist--- My opponent sites the standard Big Bang model as evidence that the universe began to exist. The problem with this is that the standard Big Bang model is certainly false, as it only takes Einstein's theory of General Relativity into account and doesn't take Quantum Mechanics into account. This point (or singularity) my opponent mentions will probably be obsolete once a complete theory of Quantum Gravity is formed. As John Barrow notes: "It is widely accepted that this new improved theory [Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterized Einstein's theory. " - John Barrow Because we don't have sufficient knowledge of the early state of the universe we cannot say that the universe began to exist. There are Quantum Mechanical models of the universe in which the universe does not begin to exist. The Hartle-Hawking state is a proposal, for example, which states that ontologically prior to the "beginning" of time roughly 13.7 billion years ago, the universe exists as four dimensions of space and none of time (thus, we have a timeless state which does not begin to exist). One of the dimensions of space would essentially convert into time and the universe would evolve according to cosmic inflation [2]. In this model, time would have a "beginning" of sorts but the universe as a whole would not begin to exist. Since Pro has not ruled ideas like this out (which are completely compatible with all the evidence we have for The Big Bang), then Pro has not established that the universe began to exist. Another possibility is that the universe itself is fundamentally timeless, and thus, never came into being. In the mid-1960's, there was a breakthrough equation meshing Relativity with Quantum Mechanics called the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This equation predicts a timeless universe. However, we clearly experience time so how could this be correct? Well Ekaterina Moreva and her team showed how time emerges from Quantum Entanglement [3]. This means that observers in the universe experience time but the universe is fundamentally timeless and changeless. Since Pro has not ruled this idea out (which is compatible with all the evidence we have for The Big Bang), Pro has not shown that that the universe began to exist. An additional possibility is that even if time is fundamental and the universe had a first state along side a first moment in time, it wouldn't follow that this initial state came into being (it could have just existed for that split moment 13.7 years ago and expanded, without coming into being). If this was the case, then the opponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument could agree that the universe has a finite age, but not have to agree that it came into existence from nothing. Since by "begins to exist" the proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument means "come into being", then unless this possibility is ruled out; Pro has not shown that the universe began to exist. ---Conclusion--- I provided 3 alternatives to the universe beginning to exist that Pro has not ruled out. Therefore, Pro has not shown that the universe began to exist. ---Sources--- [1] . https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com... [2] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] . https://medium.com...