The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

"I presented was the basic version" is an understatement.P1 - Everything that beings to exist has a cause"P2 - The Universe beganC - The Universe was causedP3 - If it was caused by a necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and changeless, then it was caused by God.C - That cause was God Now, to attack each premise and conclusion: Everything that beings to exist has a cause.Objection 1 - The statement in itself is technically wrongSub-objection 1a - Things do come into existence from nothing My opponent's defence of this case is that everything which began to exist was caused, and "Something cannot simply begin to exist for no reason, this would be illogical and absurd."I disagree. " To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations.[1] They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.[2]These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles. In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing. " -- Mark VuleticObection 1b - Apart from things such as virtual particles, nothing comes into existence.This seems strange, as we all say that John made a painting, or Oil is made into plastic. But the thing is, none of this comes into existence. Let me use Aristotlean forms to justify this: Look at the material cause. The material cause is what the object is made from. If this is what it is made from, something can only be formed by moulding something else. A comical example of this is in South Park, "The Circle of poo". Now, although it is a comedy in its first glance, look at the lyrics. "Its the poo of the antelope, the poo of the giraffeWhich crawls up to the earth, and becomes the blades of grassThe grass is eaten by the cattle, which comes out the other endTo make poo for the humans, and start all over again."[video1]http://www.youtube.com...Now, if we look at this, with some scholarly insight, we can see that the circle of poo is a cycle which does not end. No matter what, the matter that is part of poo does not stop existing. That is because some matters infinitely exist.Objection 2 - The statement in itself is fundamentally flawed in its compositionI will try and be a little less scientific and a little more logically-based in this argument. The argument is flawed because of this reason: The formation itself is unreasonable. What is being done is creating an all-encompassing rule encompassing the universe itself by only taking a single example. It seems generally presumptuous to make a generalised rule on something that has only happened, to our knowledge (which is in itself open to challenge), once, in such a way that is seems foolish to create a generalised rule. What is being done is that a rule is being made from observations within a system, used to govern a system itself -- a fallacy of composition. For analagous purposes, if I get oxygen and hydrogen at room temperature seperate, they are both gases. Saying that when they chemically bond they must, therefore, form a gas is, obviously, false. It forms water, which is liquid at room temperature. Or another example: I am made of atoms. Atoms are invisible, but this does not, of course, mean I am invisible, no matter how much I wish it were so. To make this even clearer, I shall make them into obvious syllogisms:P1 - Atoms are InvisibleP2 - I am made of atomsC - Therefore, I am invisible.P1 - X has characteristics YP2 - X is part of ZC - Therefore, Z has characteristic Y.P1 - Things inside the Universe has characteristic "things that have began are caused"P2 - Things inside of the Universe are part of the UniverseC - Therefore, the Universe, if it has began, is caused.My opponent dismisses it as "illogical" to disagree with him. I contend that it is illogical in itself to agree with him.Premise 2 - The Universe as we know it had a beginningAccepted, although the expansion of the Universe and background radiation is proof of the Big Bang, i do believe. Pre-Big Bang, there as a containment of matter in a super-condensed space.Conclusions & Characteristics of God.If we start pretending P1 is true, then we can look at the Conclusion. Firstly, we shall look at three lists: A lists of God's characteristics, a list of Characteristics my opponent claims in the argument, and a list of characteristics I think the KCA could claim.God: Independent, Infinite, Eternal, Incomprehensible, Supreme, Sovereign, Transcendent, One and Only God, Majestic, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Holy, Just, Kind, Merciful, Patient, Righteous, etc.KCA: Eternal, Powerful, Intelligent, detatched from the Universe, personal.KCA from my view: Transcendent, Personal.We can see instantly how there is a VERY long way to go before proving the existence of God (and God is defined as "(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme..." -- Oxford Dictionary, which is different to a deity), in fact, such a long way to go, it can at most suppose a creator of the Universe. Nothing more, and arguably much less. On top of this, any requirement we have made is of a necessary substance and not anything of any value. And even here, at this hurdle, Kant and Hume both start shouting about the non-existence of a necessary substance - that it only exists in linguistic convention. "It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it and its supposed effect. The same difficulty occurs in contemplating the operations of mind on body- where we observe the motion of the latter to follow upon the volition of the former, but are not able to observe or conceive the tie which binds together the motion and volition, or the energy by which the mind produces this effect. The authority of the will over its own faculties and ideas is not a whit more comprehensible: So that, upon the whole, there appears not, throughout all nature, any one instance of connexion which is conceivable by us. All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seemed conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or force at all, and that these words are absolutely without meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life." I think can explain for itself.I await my opponent's reply, and look forward to a defence of these points. Also, I would like to remind him that this is the final round next, and it would be good conduct to not bring up any new arguments, and then I won't do the same. 1 -http://www.scientificamerican.com... 2 - http://www.pha.jhu.edu...; (this is one of the simplest explanations, but still difficult. Try and focus on the words rather than the diagram, as they explain it clearly). 3 - http://www.prayerclosetministries.org...