Kalam Cosmological Argument for God is Invalid

I would like to start out by pointing out that Con has engaged in intellectual dishonesty in both of the rounds so far:“If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty.” [1]He is specifically advocating a position which he knows I’m not defending and/or he’s advocating that I defend a position which he did not take the due diligence to verify. Con knows that there is a distinction between the colloquial meaning of “valid” and “logically valid”, but he’s continuously engaging in dishonesty by initially not verifying and later ignoring the meaning I was referring to. Despite the fact that I have made the clarification in Round 2, Con still continues to attack this straw-man argument as if it is the position I’m really defending.Con himself makes a correction of a typo in Round 2, i.e. "P ? ~Q" rather than "P ? Q." This is not a “trivial issue” and people engaging in a debate should know the difference between Q and ~Q, but I didn’t attack that position because it would have been intellectually dishonest not to grant my opponent the benefit of the doubt. Of course, my opponent doesn’t grant me the same courtesy. Rebuttal 1I did make a clarification in the second round, but my opponent continues to ignore it. Con continues to engage in intellectual dishonesty by attacking a straw man argument. He knows that I’m using the term “valid” in its colloquial sense. As my opponent’s own reference points out:“If the team feels that the opponent’s case is based on a faulty or unfair interpretation of the resolution, they should provide counter definitions and convincingly explain why their perspective is more appropriate.” [2]My interpretation of the term “valid” is neither unfair nor faulty, because I’ve already demonstrated in Round 2 that valid is synonymous with “sound.” Furthermore, given the general audience of debate.org, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that such use of the term “valid” would be acceptable. Secondly, my opponent has not provided a convincing explanation as to why we should use the alternative meaning.Rebuttal 2First, I would like to correct a typo: “To that end, I have provided an example where the premises <strike>are</strike> could be true, but the conclusion is false...”Con claims that I’m committing a Genetic Fallacy, but it appears that Con doesn’t know the meaning the term:“A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant.”[3]Pointing out that my opponent’s source has an explicit disclaimer stating that the publisher is actively seeking a replacement for the article is hardly a genetic fallacy. If I was really dismissing my opponent’s reference on the grounds of its origin, then it may have qualified as a genetic fallacy, but I actually accepted that source. However, on the basis of the disclaimer, it’s entirely reasonable to add another reference which provides specific guidance on how to demonstrate that an argument is invalid (which was not present the IEP article).------The reference I provided states: “To show that an argument is invalid, we must give an example of a possibility in which the premises could be true and the conclusion false at the same time.”I would also like to remind my opponent exactly what I said, because he seems to have a really difficult time with honesty representing my argument:“To that end, I have provided an example where the premises [could be] true, but the conclusion is false, my opponent has conceded that point, therefore KCA is invalid in both the colloquial sense of the word and the definition above.”I’m specifically saying that my opponent has conceded that I have provided a logically valid example whose premises could be true, but the resulting conclusion is false. So, here is the summary:1. My example uses all of the premises from the KCA.2. The example is logically valid (as my opponent agrees).3. Both, my example and KCA, assume that the premises could be true (see Rebuttal 4 for more details).4. The conclusion is false (see Clifton’s conclusion).5. Therefore, based on the reference on how to demonstrate an argument is invalid, I have indeed demonstrated that KCA is invalid.Rebuttal 3I never claimed that Con conceded to the colloquial use of the term “valid,” this is a flat out lie from Con. To be specific, I said:“...an example of a possibility in which the premises could be true and the conclusion false, then I have done so in the first round, to which Con has agreed by stating: ‘I'll begin by admitting that Pro's argument is indeed valid.’”To remove any doubt here: this does not mean that my opponent agrees that I have provided a valid example in the colloquial sense, but that I have provided a logically valid example for which the premises could be true but the KCA’s conclusion is false. It seems that Con has fallen victim to his own game and is blaming me of equivocation, yet I specifically took the effort to quote my opponent in order to preserve the original meaning of his statement.Rebuttal 4I have satisfied the requirements stated by the reference for proving that an argument is invalid, here it is again… Clifton’s P1: P1 (Clifton): Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing.Also here are P1, P2 and C1 and of KCA:P1 (KCA): What begins existing has a cause.P2 (KCA): The universe began to exist.C1 (KCA): The universe has a cause.Given P1 of Clifton then C1 (KCA) is negated: the cause of the universe does not exist => the universe does not have a cause. The conclusion is negated by presuming that Clifton’s P1 is true and KCA’s P1 and P2 are both true. Based on the Rebuttal 2 and Rebuttal 3 definition of invalid, this argument is demonstrated to be invalid!!!Con also states that: “KCA consists of two premises [and] one conclusion.”This is not the case when we look at the entire KCA as seen on Craig’s web site [4]:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.4. If the universe has a cause of its existence… then Creator of the universe exists (shortened).5. Therefore… [a] Creator of the universe exists (shortened).I will reiterate what I said in Round 2 again: #4 and #5 are false given Clifton’s argument. In KCA P1, P2 and C1 there is no mention of God/Creator, only in 4 and 5 do we see a mention of the God/Creator. I have provided a quote explaining how an argument is demonstrated to be invalid (in Rebuttal 2 and Rebuttal 3), I have satisfied all the steps required to show an argument is invalid based on that quote, therefore KCA is invalid.Conclusion:Off the case comments not addressed due to character count limitations.I have shown that my opponent is intellectually dishonest, falsely accuses me of committing a genetic fallacy and equivocation. I have also demonstrated that, based on the definition I provided, KCA is invalid. Vote Pro!Conduct:Vote Pro, because Con consistently engaged in ad hominem attacks, using thinly veiled insults such as: “Mecap is a turd,” “Mecap is a moron,” “Not only is Pro a moron,” etc.Convincing arguments:Vote Pro, because Con attacked a position which I never held, used ad hominem attacks and was intellectually dishonest even after I clarified which definition of “valid” I was addressing.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.nflonline.org... [3] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [4] http://www.leaderu.com...