The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Premise 1 Pro says particles themselves are not uncaused. However, Harvard disagrees with him. Although it would seem impossible that a particle could materialize from nothing—not even from energy— it so happens that no laws of physics are violated because the particle is annihilated by its corresponding antiparticle before either one can be detected. [https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...] The particles do come into existence uncaused. Pro has not shown otherwise. Pro quotes William Lane Craig as an authority on Quantum Mechanics. This is an invalid appeal to authority and thus a fallacy [http://www.nizkor.org...]. Craig is a philosopher, not a physicist. The only quote that should be addressed is Davies’. It seems odd that Pro would quote Craig saying Davies is wrong, then quote Davies to support Craig’s position. Something is clearly wrong here. Pro has committed the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in quoting Davies. If you read the section after what Pro quoted, Davies says this phenomena can happen in a state of zero energy [http://goo.gl...]. These particle annihilations can happen in perfect vacuums and false vacuums, as my quote from Harvard said. Davies goes on to say “There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy..... The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter..... Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space....If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all.” [Ibid] Pro finally comments on what he has been ignoring throughout this entire debate. That non-local variables are inconsistent with premise one. Unfortunately, it’s only a comment, not a response. The reason why it’s only a single line of text is because the explanation is too long, that is why I linked to the evidence. Pro, unfortunately, straw mans it. He claims the article only claimed faster than light travel isn’t possible. I’m unsure if Pro really read it, because it clearly says that if faster than light travel is possible, then causality is violated. And that’s why faster than light travel or communication, special relativity and causality cannot coexist. [http://www.theculture.org...] Non local hidden variables require faster than light travel [Essential Quantum Mechanics, page 31], so even under deterministic interpretations, the Kalam’s first premise fails. My argument still stands. Quantum mechanics, deterministic or indeterministic, refutes premise one. Pro’s attempts have failed. Epistemological error The common definition of universe is all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. [http://oxforddictionaries.com...] I couldn’t find any dictionary that defines it as “any connected space-time”. Even if it was, we would only know this space-time and none other outside it. Any connected space-time doesn’t mean we can know what existed before. If matter did exist before the Big Bang, then our universe can begin in the sense that our existing matter that we know began. This isn’t an attack on premise 2 at all. Pro also dropped his other objections against this argument. So, this argument is still valid and unrefuted. Why God? I didn’t ignore your arguments for an unembodied mind. I’m saying, all you have done at best is prove an abstract object isn’t the cause. There is no reason to think that this immediately means an unembodied mind is the cause. Pro failed to show this. A force is only physical in the scientific sense of the word. The definitions of force, don’t have to assume a physical thing. strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement [http://goo.gl...] The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com...] One could use force to apply to God. Didn’t God demonstrate immense strength/energy/power in creating the universe? Why not skip it and think the raw non-sentient power exists? Next, Pro attempts to defend against my claim of personal incredulity. He says, he’s using his intuition to determine the cause isn’t this non-sentient force, not that he can’t understand it. The problem here is, the very definition of intuition is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning:[http://goo.gl...] Thus, Pro is still committing an argument from personal incredulity. He’s basically saying, since he can’t understand it immediately, it’s probably an unembodied mind. Sorry, but that’s still fallacious. Retro-causality Pro says, “...in the absence of powerful arguments for the B-Theory, we should hold that our experiences are veridical”. However, I did provide a powerful argument for the B-Theory, which relies on quantum mechanics. So I’ll wait till that section comes. Pro says we should rely on our intuition, however our intuition isn’t always right. The flat Earth hypothesis is one example. Another example is this picture These lines appear to be curved. However, they are straight. Move your mouse in a straight line across to see. This proves, our intuition should be tested, not accepted on face value. We should test our intuition like other theories. I reject the claim that the A-Theory goes with our intuitions. John Loftus -former student of William Lane Craig- said “Person A exists at a certain point in time T. At time T person A remembers the moment T* that lies in the past and anticipates the moment T**.that lies in the future. The only intuition that person A can have is the memory of having experienced T* , experiencing T right now and anticipating T** in the future. At any point of time this is the only knowledge about time that person A can have. But this tells A nothing about the nature of time. At time T person A will have a memory of the moment T* and an anticipation of T** whether presentism or eternalism is true. Even if eternalism is true, this doesn't change the fact that at moment T, the moment T* is merely a memory and T** has not yet been experienced. The only intuitions A can have is his memory, his present awareness and his anticipation, none of which are excluded on an eternalist point of view. Therefor dynamic theories of time do not have an explanatory advantage and nor are tenseless theories of time falsified or rendered implausible by intuition.” [http://goo.gl...] I wasn't just going after Bohemian mechanics, I was going after all realist interpretations. So I had to cite both. Bohem assumed non local realism, this has been disproved! [http://goo.gl...]. Pro has given no source to support his assertion that Bohem’s interpretation is compatible with this experiment. This means he has committed a bare assertion fallacy. Instrumentalism assumes non-realism. Opposed to scientific realism...are a variety of antirealisms, including phenomenalism and empiricism. Recently two others, instrumentalism and constructivism, have posed special challenges to realism.[http://fitelson.org...] Simultaneous causation Pro ignores my objections. He never defines how circular causation is different nor has he refuted the idea simultaneous causation regardless of how I presented it. This argument stands. Timeless Mind If God had the intention eternally, then God choose to create the universe with no chance to chose. This went unrefuted Remember Pro, since you went at round 1, you will post this in the next round. "For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed." I’m out of space. Thanks Miles.