The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

In order to show that the KCA is unsound, I will be contesting both the argument's logical validity (i. e. whether or not the conclusions follow from its premises), as well as the factual accuracy of its premises. Please note that due to the KCA's syllogistic structure, if I succeed in sufficiently refuting its validity or a single one of its premises, the whole argument falls apart. I will start with showing that the KCA is logically invalid. This primarily applies to the first conclusion; even if we accept that both P1 and P2 are true, the conclusion that the universe has a cause of existence is not really warranted, as it is an example of fallacy of composition-- the fallacious assumption that a rule which applies to a system's parts must apply to the system as a whole, too. Accepting this type of logic allows for complete absurdities to arise; a few examples of such absurdities include: "Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound," . .. "Hydrogen is not wet. Oxygen is not wet. Therefore, water (H2O) is not wet," . .. "Your brain is made of molecules. Molecules do not have consciousness. Therefore, your brain cannot be the source of consciousness. " [1]. Even if every object in the universe has a cause, we cannot rationally assume that this must also apply to the universe as a whole. Thus, the KCA's first and most important conclusion is fallaciously derived, rendering the entire argument to be unsound. Refutation of Premise 1"Anything which begins to exist has a cause of its existence"The most imminent problem with this premise is that we have *never* witnessed anything begin to exist, as a result of the first law of thermodynamics. Everything we see is merely a change of some sort, be it physical, chemical, or sub-atomic. Without having ever witnessed anything begin to exist, it becomes silly to make broad generalizations about what is necessary for something to start existing-- it is the equivalent of attempting to describe a person who you've never met before or theorize about the social habits of a yet-undiscovered species. We cannot arbitrarily make rules about things with which we have no experience. For that reason alone, this premise is basically rendered to be a bare assertion. I will go ahead and pre-emptively refute the most common deduction used to indirectly affirm this premise-- the logic that since we do not randomly see objects come into existence around us without cause, we can assume that they must only come into existence when triggered to do so by an external cause. However, this logic ignores the fact that all matter takes up a set amount of space, so objects cannot come into existence where there is already another object. They can only come into existence in empty space, and it is a well-known fact among physicists that there is no empty space within our universe; it is entirely filled by a quantum energy field known as the Cosmological Constant, with even what appears to be absolute vacuum actually having a positive energy density [2]. For this reason, regardless of whether or not the KCA's first premise is true, it would be impossible for new matter to come into existence within our universe-- the entirety of it is already occupied. Refutation of Premise 2"The universe began to exist"This premise relies wholly on the traditional version of the Big Bang theory, in which there was a single big bang approximately 13.8 billion years ago from which the ever-expanding universe as we know it came about. This ignores the fact that there are several equally viable cosmological models which are consistent with all the same evidence, yet lead us to believe in an eternal, cyclic universe. Most of these generally follow the template of an oscillating universe, which theorizes that the universe is perpetually engaged in a cycle of big bangs and big crunches because of a variety of factors including entropy, dark energy, branes, and gravity [3]. In order for this premise to be accepted, we must at least have some reason to believe that the traditional Big Bang model is preferable to cyclical models. Refutation of Premise 3"If the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause is God"The obvious problem with this is that it ignores all the possible alternative causes of the universe. I will specifically be advocating for the alternative cause known as simultaneous causation-- the concept that the universe could have caused itself into existence. This may seem absurd upon first glance, but that is simply because of the bias and limitations of cognition that are inherent in us as human beings-- we cannot coherently conceive in our minds that with which we have absolutely no experience with (a problem that also applies to the KCA's first premise). Since the Big Bang is considered to be the point at which time and space were created, it would obviously have had to happen before either existed; without the existence of time, our intuitions about causality become completely irrelevant, as we have only ever experienced existence within a temporal plane of existence. Once we accept that the Big Bang happened before time existed, the reasoning that "the universe can't cause itself to exist before it exists" no longer holds up because the entire concept of "before" becomes meaningless-- a chronological sequence of events with 'befores', 'afters' and 'durings' cannot exist without time. Simultaneous causation is a viable way to explain what caused the universe; at the very least, in order to accept the KCA's third premise, it must be shown that God is a significantly better explanation. ConclusionI have cast a substantial amount of doubt on all three of the KCA's premises, as well as called into question the argument's logical validity, effectively rendering it to be unsound. The resolution is affirmed. I look forward to Con's response! [1] . http://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [2] . http://www.astro.ucla.edu...[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...