The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Logically Sound

I'll now provide a full defense for the KCA. Logically Valid. Now, the argument can be broken into two parts, different than what my opponent has said. (I am not adding anything to the argument; I am only defending the KCA itself by doing this. P1: Whatever begins to exists has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: The universe has a cause. This part is logically valid as far as I can tell, since this is an obvious fact of logic; anything that began to exist has a cause. This part has never been proven logically invalid to my knowledge and the conclusion follows from the premises. If this can be proven otherwise, the entire argument will fall apart. So far in the argument's history, that has not been done; so good luck with that. And the second part: P1: The cause was either personal and intelligent or an abstract object. P2: The cause was personal and intelligent and not an abstract object. C: Therefore, there was a personal and intelligent cause behind the universe; namely, God. This is another obviously logically valid syllogism. The cause can only be either abstract or personal. It's up to me to prove that the cause is not abstract. If I can, the rule of Modus Tollens, which states "If there are only a and b, and not b, then it must be a. " The second part is more up for dispute, so I will spend much of my time defending this. Logically sound Now, I will get into the defense of both parts. They're both logically valid syllogisms, now I just need to defend the truth behind them. Defense of part 1 I'm sure one thing that my opponent and I can both agree on is that the universe had a beginning. That physical beginning of the universe is what is known as the Big Bang. There is solid evidence supporting it. (1)(2) So the logical conclusion to come to is that the beginning must have been caused by something. Defense of Part 2 Now that it's established that there was a beginning and a cause of the universe, we can only come to two conclusions: C1: The cause was intelligent and personal. C2: The cause was an abstract object I will maintain that the cause cannot be an abstract object, as they cannot cause anything by themselves. In order to cause something, the object must have causal ability. If I find a car running outside my house, and I wonder what made it run, I can't answer "the laws of gravity" or "the letter A". This point is logically clear as objects themselves do not have causal ability, especially when it comes to first causes. By the rule of Modus Tollens, since it isn't an abstract object, it must be a personal cause; or in other words, a mind that conciously created the universe. Conclusion I have defended the KCA and shown all the premises to be logically valid and sound. The universe had a beginning, that beginning had a cause, that cause was either abstract or personal, that cause was not abstract and therefore personal, the cause is a mind, and that mind is the concious creator of the universe; namely God. Therefore, God exists, and that provides the strongest foundation for the KCA ever. I look forward to my opponent's refutations. Sources (1). http://www.universetoday.com... (2). http://www.slate.com...