The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

P1 The only reinforcement Con gives on the topic is from quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle describes the inability to simultaneously predict the location and speed of subatomic particles (i.e., electrons). The Con's assumptions, based on some scientist's opinions, unjustifiably do not distinguish causality and predictability. The Con has brought up a beautiful description of quantum mechanics delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi) but does not recognize it as a statistical framework in which the model is not "governed by" but falls into much like Newtonian physics is a less accurate description of Einstein's description of General Relativity. "Science is done all the time involving quantum mechanics, rationally, all while assuming acausal laws" -CON This is a highly peculiar statement considering not only do all scientists assume (whether they realize it or not) that their conclusions, statements, and logic has a justifiable CAUSE- but they also go about their research (especially physics) finding causes. I'm not talking about philosophy. The very nature of the equation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi) gives a description of the change in energy, the change in time, and a constant. When you change the time in the equation, you necessarily change the Energy in the equation (especially when energy is above a certain threshold) In every non-inequality SCIENCE equation this is certainly true. A change in the gravitational constant, necessarily changes (or causes the change) the period of a pendulum, swing, spring, orbit. Etc. I could go on and on. [5] The most serious objection to acausality is the mere fact that it's conclusion is self-defeating. The Con assumed that his/her memories and past experiences can formulate what he/she calls a logical conclusion. If he/she didn't, then he/she wouldn't be debating a logical debate because past experiences did not cause Con to formulate any logical conclusion. If there is no cause for the Cons proposal, then it can't in any way shape or form be validated-therefore rendering any of Con's conclusions useless. This is what I mean by, "To deny the Law of Causality is to deny is to deny rationality"- Pro But even if, for any reason, any voter concludes that there are no causes (that includes reasons) for anyone's conclusions, they MUST therefore render everyone's conclusions unjustified. In that case, the voter should still vote PRO because the Con instigated a logical debate, but rendered logic useless. I thought it would be self-explanatory because of the argument's self-defeating nature. The mere fact that my opponent stands by non-causality automatically defeats his conclusion. It's as simple as that. For the people who believe in rational thinking and debates, I will continue. BOTH I want to make it absolutely clear that a particle/field (vacuum flux) was found in the mass range that the Higgs Boson is expected to be. The CERN, along with numerous other contributors are now in the process of verifying the particle's properties. 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. [11] The Con has made the assertion that the law of causality and science doesn't necessary apply outside of Space-time. My question to that is, "Why in the world are scientists trying to apply it to the Higgs Boson, and why is Brian Green coming out with the multi-verse theory based on the Higgs Boson if your assertion is true?" This is because he can't say anything without the Law of Causality, logic, science, and naturalistic assumptions without it being a self-defeating conclusion. (After all, atheist don't have god or bible besides their own fallible works) (-; P2 Alright, I am going to begin by talking about Con's assertion that the Universe is finite, but doesn't necessitate a beginning. Con said: 1."Philosophers..argued that something only ‘begins to exist' if there was a time earlier in which it did not exist (which makes sense based on experience)." 2."The Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time [4]," 3.Therefore the Universe never begins to exist or had a start and doesn't need a cause. Pro says: 1.Assumes acausality->I have already debunked extensively. Something cannot start from nothing regardless of time- without causality:ALL LOGIC FAILS IN THIS DEBATE. 2."The Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time" and even gave a Wikipedia reference and all. Except Con's Wikipedia reference reads, "The Planck epoch (or Planck era), named after Max Planck, is the earliest period of time in the HISTORY of the universe." Con accidentally forgot to add the word history to the end of his/her premise. That is a disastrous mistake because history is defined as: History -the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events. [10] It is in fact the earliest collection of research, and in that research there is nothing that inquires that that it is by necessity the absolute beginning. In fact, the very article he brought up says, "As there presently exists no widely accepted framework for how to combine quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity, science is not currently able to make predictions about events occurring over intervals shorter than the Planck time or distances shorter than one Planck length, the distance light travels in one Planck time—about 1.616 ï¿½ 10−35 meters……..Without an understanding of quantum gravity, a theory unifying quantum mechanics and relativistic gravity, the physics of the Planck epoch are unclear, and the exact manner in which the fundamental forces were unified, and how they came to be separate entities, is still poorly understood." Yet the Con says, "The Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time [4]"- Con ..even though no one knows. In fact, the primary axiom in secular science does concede that the Universe had an absolute BEGINNING for excellent reasons of course. Hence the fact that there is a time=0. In fact this article demonstrates the conclusion very well. Secular science has no idea or has very little idea about what happened and "the physics of the Planck epoch are unclear, and the exact manner in which the fundamental forces were unified, and how they came to be separate entities, is still poorly understood." This is by its very nature the exemplification of the supernatural. You see, all naturalistic assumptions have lead researchers back to the Big Band and Big Beginning, yet when it comes to the very beginning- naturalistic theories break down. I believe this is because of the existence of the supernatural. Now you may ask me to prove, with naturalistic assumptions, the supernatural-but that would be circular reasoning-just as disproving the supernatural with un-supernatural (naturalistic) assumptions is. Space-time does not have to start within space-time. This video explains the last argument. http://www.youtube.com...#! If the Con is trying to say that the speed of light particles could become asymmetric all on their own, I will remind you that the Con has the burden of proof on this. If Con can't, then the particles need a supernatural to get into that state providing my conclusion. Conclusion: The Con has yet to give a sound argument against either premise and the conclusion is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Standing against the Law of Causality destroys rationality-Con must answer this logically or non-penalty concede it. There still is a beginning; no objections are left standing. I understand that atheism commits the Con to destroy this logic, but that doesn't mean you can-Con certainly hasn't so far. 10) http://en.wikipedia.org... 11) http://arxiv.org...