The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Introduction I don't think the rules are unjust. I can only rebut a case for an argument, if a case is given. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is the theist's argument, so it is only right that I should go last. Oscillation And Pendulums Pendulum swings may have a start; that doesn't mean an oscillating universe does. Therefore, even if a pendulum swing does need a beginning based on experience, we have no actual experience of universes oscillating. Thus, my opponent cannot bridge the gap here, and say that the oscillating universe requires a beginning. Occam's Razor God's existence is an unnecessary assumption. We know the universe exists, but we don't know if God does. Therefore, positing something we don't even know exists to explain the universe, when we don't have to go outside to explain the universe, is unnecessary. More On The Oscillation "Your believe the Universe just exists, why would it just exist in such an oscillating motion" - Pro Why wouldn't it? Remember, Pro has the burden of proof. He must rule this out to make his case, I don't have to prove it true. "If it was always there then why is it even oscillating" - Pro Why wouldn't it be oscillating? As I said, my opponent has the burden of proof here. Asking me questions is not the same as meeting his burden of proof. "The whole point of this statement was to argue that the Universe came did not just come from nothing but the fact that it is now expanding and contracting would suggest in nothing is now turning into something anyway." - Pro Nope. The universe just expands and contracts forever in the past. No "something from nothing" scenario, as there was always something. You can only have something from nothing if you start with nothing, however, there is no state of the universe preceded by "nothing" in this scenario, as any state of the universe is preceded by another. Evolution "Evolution does not explain the creation of our existence it is merely the path that has taken us from existence to where we our now, our ability to evolve is instinctive but again why are we programmed in such a way?" - Pro Evolution has nothing to do with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. "Furthermore, no one is saying the Universe just spontaneously came to existence which is not what I am arguing, I am arguing that God created the Universe." - Pro This argument only works if the universe had a beginning, and if everything that has a beginning, has a cause. I already tore down these two assertions. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause because of energy conservation we can not simply gain nothing from something as I am sure you agree and vaguely touch on in your argument." - Pro Energy conservation is never violated if the universe just went through multiple contractions and expansions. The same amount of energy would always be there. "The Universe began to exist because otherwise would suggest it is infinite and infinity is not possible, it is an abstract concept and thus cannot be applied in this situation. there are inconsistencies in infinity as well." - Pro Pro hasn't proven that infinity is impossible, or that it cannot be applied to this situation. Therefore, we shouldn't believe him without further argumentation. He offered no justification for this point. Conclusion None of my opponents argument show a creator of the universe. Both premises of the argument have not been shown true. Since Pro has the burden of proof in the debate; the debate is leaning in my favor.