The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

I'll get straight into the argument, seeing as I have less than an hour to write it... and get the conclusion done quickly. Beforehand, I'd like to point out that my opponent and I have both agreed that the argument on Kant (the previous round argument by myself) has been dropped, and a conduct point (not the full arguments) goes to myself. If I have misread this, phantom, please message me. Also, due to the structure of the debate, this is the final round. The other round can be used to dispute any technicalities (like the point on Kant) if needed.The uncausedThe contention to my criticism is purely on whether atoms can be caused, and that I have misrepresented his side. Actually, when I reread his point, I think I stated it perfectly: I agree that a condition - or effect, but I'll get onto that in a second - of tritium decay is too many neutrons. But this means that it will decay eventually. Half of the atoms decay after 12.32 years[1], but it can still decay after 3 minutes of formation (and some do) or ten thousand years (and some feasibly can do). With 14C, its half-life is roughly 5000 years, but can decay after a couple years. The reason for when a single atom precisely decays is not addressed: it does not spontaneously decay when it has too many atoms, so this is not the cause. Thus, there are things which are still uncaused. This breaks the law of causality, the first premise of the Kalam, and makes the argument unconvincing and unsound, negating the resolution.Also, regarding the second criticism of the theories not being able to show no cause: theories have been empirically tested on the cause, and all fail: the only that remains is the lack of causation. My opponent's rebuttal has came down to "Proving that no cause exists is a difficult task". I would state that the proof is one that is inductive: not certain, but it still holds. That is, it holds more likely than not (by a large margin) that it is uncaused than caused. Thus, this essentially makes it more rational to reject the law of causality. Thus, this makes the Kalam argument unsound, negating the resolution.The material problemMy opponent seems to misunderstand me: he states that, as long as we affirm the law of causality, then it does not matter whether it is ex-materia or ex-nihilo. My statement is that the law of causality only affects that which is created ex-materia. If one rejects the law of causality, one need to justify its existence. Its justification for existence is based empirically. The empiricism works purely inside the realm of that which is created ex-materia. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, there is the material problem which states that all things which are caused, as we learnt from Aristotle, have material cause: a material which it is made from. The universe lacks a material cause, because it is made ex nihilo. This, therefore, means it does not have a full cause which can be explained by the principle of causality (which is justified to exist by predicating itself on Aristotle's four causes. This can be seen to criticise either P1 or P2, but I never explicitly said that I concede either premise (as an aside, I'd dispute both, given enough characters). However, the criticism stands. In reference to the diagram, I enjoy it as it shows how things with a previous material cause can be fully explained to be caused. What my opponent is essentially debating though is those which simply 'exist' without an arrow pointed towards it (symbolising the causer). The diagram itself necessitates uncaused causes, which I propose is the universe. Now, would it make sense to say the same law of causality works for those which are not caused? Of course not: we need a different law.The fallacy of compositionI'd like to go over a new image: The idea is simple: if something commits a logical fallacy, then the argument is invalid. The fallacy of composition is one which states that the parts don't follow the same rules as the whole: if so, then there is a tangible element of football teams which make the team spirit. If it were not a fallacy, then the fact that we are made up of atoms and that atoms are invisible necessarily concludes that we are invisible.Finally, the idea that mathematics exists outside the universe is still fallacious, as the only reason given is that the impossibility of the contrary. This begs the question: why is it impossible for numbers to not exist outside the universe. The solution is selfevident: numbers don't physically exist in spacetime. Thus, they do not exist in the universe. Numbers obviously don't take up space, so it isn't that which inhabits the universe.Rationalism, Causality, and PlatoThe argument my opponent made here is one that, essentially, I am going to use as well: "it is a hasty conclusion. You don't just observe things that are seemingly linked and deduce they are linked". It is a hasty conclusion to conclude anything about a cause of the universe, of even if it exists at all. Any conclusion, in fact, is unjustified, so nailing any of them down as correct is fallacious. Further, the new argument about the rational intuition falls under the basis of rationalism: a rationalist would acccept these statements as intuitively true. Though some are disputed, such as the Law of Excluded Middle, they are accepted. Further, for the Kalam argument to be logically sound, it must inhabit the realm of reason (an argument that is logically sound which uses, as my opponent has done, a dismissal of logic, is inconsistent, and therefore worse than invalid). Characteristics of GodI am going to quickly state this case again: the argument in the first round claimed that it supposes a God that is transcendent, among other characteristics. These characteristics are unfounded as made in my previous argument. The Horse analogyThe analogy is to say that, although it may seem that there must be some positive result - that is, some cause - it is not necessarily true. I agree with the claim we "don't have knowledge to know which one", or whether there is "an inevitable winner, or no winner" due to the simple truth that it could be any cause, or no cause at all. Thus, the characteristics of God are impossible. And if it does not have the characteristics of a God, then it simply is not a God, and thus the argument is not sound. Again, I reiterate this is the final round to make the rounds we had equal. This was a very good debate, and it was certainly an intellectually stimulating one. Thank you, and due to the closeness of the debate, please be clear with the RFDs simply so we know where to improve. Thank you to my opponent and readers.1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...;