I linked a reference from a university while you on the other hand have linked the blog of William Craig.
You linked to a presumed expert blog regarding the existence of quantum sub-automic particles. I linked to WLC regarding KCA, in which he is a expert. Where is the difference.
Standard cosmology actually states uncaused event as per my link pages ago. Thus you are out of date.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause seems obviously true— at the least, more so than its denial. Yet a number of atheists, in order to avoid the argument’s conclusion, have denied the first premise. Sometimes it is said that sub-atomic physics furnishes an exception to premise (1), since on the sub-atomic level events are said to be uncaused. In the same way, certain theories of cosmic origins are interpreted as showing that the whole universe could have sprung into being out of the sub-atomic vacuum. Thus the universe is said to be the proverbial “free lunch.”
This objection, however, is based on misunderstandings. In the first place, not all scientists agree that sub-atomic events are uncaused. Many physicists today are quite dissatisfied with this view (the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation) of sub-atomic physics and are exploring deterministic theories like those of David Bohm. 7 Thus, sub-atomic physics is not a proven exception to premise (1).
Second, even on the traditional, indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the sub-atomic vacuum; they do not come from nothing. 8 Third, the same point can be made about theories of the origin of the universe out of a primordial vacuum. 9 Popular magazine articles touting such theories as getting “something from nothing” simply do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing, but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Philosopher of science Robert Deltete accurately sums up the situation: “There is no basis in ordinary quantum theory for the claim that the universe itself is uncaused, much less for the claim that it sprang into being uncaused from literally nothing.”
WLC
Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship.
To compare an object which is not natural, a ship, with an object which is natural. Ships do not occur in nature. Thus your example is a fallacy.
How did you take the definition of the word "create" to be a watchmakers fallacy, or a false analogy. I believe the analogy is fine and that you are being pernickety to distract from your evasions. You need to check your list of fallacies and what the actually refer to.
If chaos matter existed before the BB, or whatever you want to call it. It could be greater than God or produced God. Chaos material could be uncaused as well. So now you have two uncaused concepts, God and chaos matter. More so you are using an unfounded assumption, chaos material, to prove another unproven assumption, God.
I did not say that, and the quote taken from Joseph Smith did not say that either. Chaos material came after the big bang. That makes the rest of that paragraph nonsensical warranting no further rebuttal.
It's an error in your logic as it was not a question, it were statements in which your concept can be questioned.. You proposed a concept of chaos matter. Matter does not exist without space, thus chaos-space. The questions inherit to our universe would apply to chaos-matter and space would apply as well. However by presupposition chaos matter to answer your own question you are begging the question which is the basis of KCA to prove the KCA.
I fear to tell you that the error lies in your comprehension. You arrogantly said:
This raises a few question which you can not answer. If there was "chaos matter" then God could be the product of this matter, not the creator of it.
To which I sarcastically replied, followed by a precise answer.
Well, I will give it a go, you might be surprised. How do you work that out then. Chaos matter was the result of the big bang, or plasma during the early stages. God existed before the big bang so how could he be a product of it?
I do not care about his creditors, argument ad populum. Who are his creditors? Are they philosophers or physics? Prove his creditors are even worth looking up. Also the statement has several fallacies which I covered earlier such as the watchmaker fallacy and the issues with chaos matter.
You and your fallacies that stifle debate, ah. And your "argumentums" that do the same. Just ploys to accomplish your evasions in responding to the points being made.
Nope when there are fallacies within arguments this shows an error in logic and thinking process of the presenter. It also shows what errors the presenter is making by naming the fallacy and point it out in the relevant part of text. This shows that the conlusions and arguments of the presenter are illogical. I no more need to address illogical arguments then I would need to answer the question of "why do fairies steal Bob's keys?". I have pointed out nonsense, I am not obligated to respond to nonsense.
Then why are you.
It is completely proven by virtual particles in QF and QT. Also by using a chair as an example is just repating the previous fallacy. Also my link have already proven my argument so you are free to retract your statements when you find the time to do so.
No, it is not virtually proven. Have I made a fallacy. I hope not.
It is good that you have acknowledge it is speculation, which is just what I have been saying the whole time.
Me too, only you have not understood what I said, maybe another fallacy.
Despite the glaring evidence that clearly states that KCAs first premise can be nothing else but right you still try and argue the point. I am not going to keep repeating my self if you are to stubborn to see the truth.
Speculation, the KCA does not say matter, energy, anything. Just an undefined cause.
That it is a undefined cause gives rise to suggestion as to what that cause maybe. In my expert opinion on theology, especially Christianity, I have deduced that, in my opinion, the cause was indeed God.
Again refuting your own argument. If it was uncaused P1 is false. The KCA fails, move on.
If it was uncaused it would be a different argument in which God could still be responsible for the universe coming into existence. That was the point I was making and you failed to pick up on.
The universe qualifies as the reality in which everything we know exists. However due to the fact that some objects within it follow causality does not mean the universe itself is subject to this law. Also there are object with do not follow this law. The law of cause and effect are for objects within the universe but is not applicable to the universe itself. It is about the organization of matter and energy and in which is observed. Thus the KCA is another fallacy of equivocation.
This is irrelevant to KCA. It is facts after the event and therefore a fallacious argument.
How can this be true. "The law of cause and effect are for objects within the universe but is not applicable to the universe itself."
Illogical arguments can be dismissed for being illogical. As evident by your abuse of fallacies. My link was to a university lecture for physics not a blog. Either you are lying or mistake my link for one posted by another member. Did you actually look at it?
On the contrary, if anyone is abusing fallacies it is you for over using them to stifle debate. I am not a scientist, I am not familiar with fallacies, indeed, they seem stupid and unnecessary to me. Yes, I looked at it and found that it was authored by one individual who could have used his own beliefs in the lecture rather then the truth.
Dishonestly knows no bounds
Is that remark for you or me? Or is it a name-calling fallacy?
Cause and effect bud. You are the cause, I am observing the effect along with commentary. 
