The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Thanks again RT.Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A CauseThere are plausible causes to quatum fluctuatuins covered in the book of: Edward Nelson: Quantum Fluctuations, the book contains discussion of possible physical causes of quantum fluctuations in terms of an interaction with a background field. The author gives a critical analysis of stochastic mechanics as a candidate for a realistic theory of physical processes, discussing measurement, local causality in the sense of Bell, and the failure of the theory in its present form to satisfy locality.If not everything that Has a beginning had a cause, then we wouldn't assume casualty in everything, which is the very reason of our scientific advancement.Premise 2: The Universe Began To ExistNow RT I want to bring to your attention to the fact that you call quantum fluctuations "a beginning" when then you refure "beginnings " in the second premise following the B-theory of time?! so there either is a problem with the B-theory, or that the sentences as we formulate them are not fit to the theory and need to be reformulated to fit the theory . and the KCA wouldn't look the same as it is.I honestly can't say Determinism is right all the time, or indeterminism is, it will depend on what context you use them for. In our context and as we speak of beginnings and about things that require a time passage, we get to use the indeterminism A-theorie of time:"Now I tried to present to Einstein-Parmenides as strongly as I could my conviction that a clear stand must be made against any idealistic view of time. And I also tried to show that, though the idealistic view was compatible with both determinism and indeterminism, a clear stand should be made in favour of an "open" universe—one in which the future was in no sense contained in the past or the present, even though they do impose severe restrictions on it. I argued that we should not be swayed by our theories to give up realism (for which the strongest arguments were based on common sense), though I think that he was ready to admit, as I was, that we might be forced one day to give it up if very powerful arguments (of Gödel's type, say) were to be brought against it. I therefore argued that with regard to time, and also to indeterminism (that is, the incompleteness of physics), the situation was precisely similar to the situation with regard to realism. Appealing to his own way of expressing things in theological terms, I said: if God had wanted to put everything into the world from the beginning, He would have created a universe without change, without organisms and evolution, and without man and man's experience of change. But He seems to have thought that a live universe with events unexpected even by Himself would be more interesting than a dead one. —Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, pp150 A sentient being Vs a combination of factors.As we both agree about the existence of the human being, and that he is a sentiant being,I will use him to show that He controlls the combination of factors, eventually to wash his hands.John's hands were dirty, 5 minutes later they are clean, the cause is John washed his hands, the sentient being used wated and soap, when he saw his hands are dirty and cleaned them. when he wanted to clean his hands his brain obeyed and moved his feet towards the washroom, then when he wanted again his brain obeyed and got the soap with one hand and opened the water tap with the other , then for he wanted it his brain obeyed and his hands washed one another !!The Neural activity happens after the sentient being wills to do something, This is the very reason why men are responsible before the law! if the combination of factors where what determines our actions , we wouldn't be sentient beings , but plants. And the "Will" as it is made by the spirit, and not the brain, isn't yet known by science, and may never be, except by psychology and reasoning. Our body obeys our brain, our brain obeys ourselves.