The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause"There are plausible causes to quantum fluctuations 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." - ProIf one reviews my previous arguments, they will realise that I agreed that there are deterministic interpretations which involve quantum fluctuations being caused. However, the claim that there is local causality is not generally accepted. This is because Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat ran experiments that actually found violations of the relevant Bell inequalities up to 242 standard deviations[1]. If this is the case, then this shows that there cannot be any hidden variables unless they are non-local. My opponent has not refuted my claims that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are ad hoc and violations of Occam's Razor. This means, in the context of this debate, it stands that deterministic interpretations are less plausible. "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." - ProThe problem is that causality is not assumed in everything, and it is not assumed in quantum physics. As I have already argued, causality is commonly assumed false at the quantum scale. My opponent simply has bare assertions. I have supported the notion that we cannot just assume causality, because it is not generally accepted in science and philosophy due to the apparently spontaneous behavior of sub-atomic events: "Where is the evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause?...Quantum particles do apparently jump in and out of existence from nothing, but this behavior seems to be quite random. The closest examples that I know of to creation ex nihilo are non-causal." - Professor of philosophy, Peter Millican[2]Additionally, Alexander's model of comic origins[3] describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model. "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." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[4]We are left with no reason from my opponent as to why we should just naively assume that causality applies everywhere, and to everything. She has not met her burden of proof with regards to Premise 1; I have went above and beyond it. This negates the resolution. However, what fun would it be to not delve into the second premise as well?Premise 2: Everything That Begins To Exist Has a Cause"Now 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?!" - ProI never denied the above. It the B-Theory is true, then quantum fluctuations do not ontologically come into being, but only appear to come into being due to the illusion of temporal becoming. Here is an illustration to demonstrate what I am speaking about: With the B-Theory of time, all time slices are equally real. A particular leg movement would never actually come into being, or anything, as it is all ontologically real. Now, with regards to the contradiction, I was not bringing forward a cumulative case here. My argument is that either refutation (either the refutation to Premise 1, or Premise 2) defeats the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Therefore, the point my opponent is making is trivial. If my refutations contradict each other then we can delete either one, and the remainder would still refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument regardless. "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"My opponent cannot just assume the A-Theory of time without any justification (I actually gave justification for B-Theory in my previous rounds). Regardless, if she assumes indeterminism then this shows that not everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause - and my argument from Wes Morriston, that was dropped, already argued for the notion that this is necessary for a causal process - so I am baffled as to why my opponent would take this route. Anyway, my opponent quotes Karl Popper for some reason. However Karl Popper commits the fallacy of appealing to consequence. The reason why the realism of temporal passage is denied is because of the scientific success of the Minkowski space-time interpretation of Special Relativity. My opponent never refuted the Minkowski interpretation, or how it suggests B-Theory. Many even adhere to the notion that quantum mechanics itself proves B-Theory, like Willard Van Orman Quine and Hilary Putnam[5][6].Fruitytree has not met her burden of proof with regards to Premise 2; I have went above and beyond it. This negates the resolution alone. Personal Cause"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 !!" - ProYes, but what caused John to do all of this was prior neural activity in the brain (a combination of factors). My opponent did not refute the scientific studies I provided in the first round that show that prior neural activity causes conscious states[7][8]. Since causes come before their effects, and the neural activity occurs before it reaches the consciousness, then we know the neural effects are what is doing the causing. The rest of this section from Pro is nothing more than baseless claims about how spirituality has something to do with "will", which begs the question against metaphysical naturalism. She claims that will controls brain states, but brain states are what causes that "will" in the first place. ConclusionFruitytree has not supported the KCA to the extent required. I went above and beyond my burden of proof.As it stands, the resolution has been negatedSources [1] Kwiat, P. G., et al. (1999) Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons,Physical Review A60, R773-R776[2] Video Source[3] http://mukto-mona.net...[4] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)[5] A philosopher Looks At Quantum Mechanics again, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, pp 615 - 634.[6] Word and Object, Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.[7] http://www.consciousentities.com...[8] http://www.nature.com...http://www.youtube.com...PS. Just a reminder to Pro that her next round must only consist of "No argument will be posted here as agreed."Thank you.