The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound

"An argument can be two things: valid and/or sound. In order for an argument (e.g. the Kalam Cosmological Argument) to be valid, its conclusion must follow logically from its premises. It does, therefore the Kalam Cosmological Argument is valid."In no way does "God is the cause of the universe" follow from the premise "the universe had a cause". That would be like saying "This person was murdered, therefore, Frank Mcgee was the murderer". This is clearly a non-sequitorClearing up the confusion regarding my burden:"In order for it to be sound, not only must it be valid (which it is) but its premises must also be true."Perhaps. However one of the premises could be true by chance even though it is not logically sound, all I have to do is show that a premise is not logically sound in the debate context.The KCA involves what scientists call "unfalsifiable claims". One example would be if I said "there is an invisible friend beside me and nothing physical effects him and he can effect nothing physical", now there is no way you could show that the premise is false, however you can show it is not logically sound. I hope this clears up the confusion.Regarding Premise 1:"Pro claims that this is a baseless assertion, but it is not. Even if his argument held water, we would still have an example of something that came into existence that has a cause: the universe."Bare assertion fallacy.The Big Bang states that the universe as we know it expanded from the singularity, it does not state that the singularity began to exist out of absolute nothingness, it also does not say that if the singularity began to exist, it had a cause. "We have reason to suppose something could create the universe from nothing, and logical arguments such as the one we're debating are used to show why belief in an Intelligent Creator is reasonable."Bare assertion fallacy. What reasons are there? Also I am aware the Kalam Cosmological Argument is what we are debating about, this doesn't mean you have demonstrated any flaws in my reasoning."There is a principle of causality in science that every effect has a cause."This does not seem to apply at the sub-atomic level."It is also not correct to look at a hunk of metal and call it a car"A "car" is what we called a certain rearrangement of things, so you are correct, if the pre-existing things aren't in the peticular arrangment, then you wouldn't call it "car". This doesn't mean anything came into existence when the car was made."It could be made into something else. It's not until a car is actually constructed that it may correctly be called a car."Agreed, however you aren't calling a brand new existing thing a "car", you are calling a certain specific arrangment of pre-existing things a "car". So yes, if the metal was rearranged in a different way that didn't correspond to what you labeled a "car", it wouldn't be a "car". I'm still confused as to how you believe your statements are in any way providing a reason to believe that something new was added to existence that the universe didn't contain (began to exist), when a car is made."Pro and I began to exist; the effect of our existence was contingent upon the cause, our parents procreating and our father's sperm merging with our mother's egg. We began to exist, and we have a cause of our existence."In reality all material you are made of pre-existed before your conception. If my opponent wants to argue that we "began" to exist, he must first describe scientifically what was added to physical reality that wasn't there prior."Pro seems to think that scientists love being in the dark about why things happen"Straw man fallacy, I never implied the above."Scientists would not rest at these particles seeming to be uncaused, they would find a cause for these things to happen."My opponent doesn't understand the difference between macro-level events, and sub-atomic level events. If he did, he would not be saying such outrages things."So as we see, Pro equivocates by appealing to quantum mechanics to show that something can come from nothing, which contradicts the scientific principle of causality, that every effect has a cause."Yes things seem to require causes at the macro-level, not the sub-atomic level. Re-Cap:My opponent's refutations were basically a fallacious plate of spaghetti, so it's hard to address each noodle.Problems with my opponent's objections to my refutations regarding Premise 1:1) He assumes I have to show unfalsifiable claims are false, instead of simply showing why the claim is baseless and not logically sound.2) He doesn't understand the difference between macro-level events, and sub-atomic level events and therefore thinks it's logical to claim that whatever occurs at the macro-level (causes) must occur at the sub-atomic level. Physicists dont agree with Con's position.3) He assumes that putting a label on a certain rearrangement of pre-existing things, is somehow a new thing beginning to exist. If I put 1,2,3,4,5,6, and 7 together, a new number wasn't created just because you can label those sequences of numbers "Gorg". "Gorg" didn't begin to exist, all you did was put a label on a specific rearrangement of numbers.Regarding Premise 2:"It is not logical to suppose that a singularity existed before the universe that caused the big bang without an Intelligent Cause."Bare asserion fallacy. There are many hypotheses which deals with a cause of the universe that do not involve intelligence (M-theory). "No know natural laws could account for this violent eruption out of eternal quietude"God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because you don't know how natural existence can account for something, doesn't mean it can't. Even if you are right that no natural laws could account for this "violent erruption", that still doesn't mean God did it."Finally, positing eternal primordial stuff does nothing to account for the incredible order that follows the moment of the big bang. Only an intelligent Creator can account for this."Another God of the Gaps fallacy. Just because you don't how how the singularity can evolve into something with order, doesn't mean God did it.Re-Cap:1) My opponent never refuted the fact that The Big Bang model never indicates an origin of the singularity (The Big Bang = The universe we know it expanded from the singularity). Therefore, there is nothing backing up the premise "The universe began to exist", and it is baseless, and therefore not logically sound.2) My opponent commits bare asserion fallacies left right and center, and seems to just assert the fact that the cause of the universe (if there even is one) must be intelligent without any in depth reasoning or anything to back up the claims.Regarding Premise 3:"A premise can only be true or false"Yes, however if one of the premises could be proven to be true at this point, there would be no people like me. If they could be proven false at this point, there would be no people like you. One can only make logical cases at this point, my opponent is dealing with absolutes when that is not the context of the debate."Pro has given no reason to reject the first two premises and as such, this premise stands."Actually I gave very good reasons, since all of your objections are fallacies/ incorrect, then the refutations still standRegarding Premise 4: "Now, as you will note from my first round, there is no fourth premise."Your first round had no sources, and is incorrect.If we were discussing the "Cosmological Argument" strictly then you may be right, however we are discussing the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" which includes more than 3 premises claiming "God" exists.http://plato.stanford.edu...http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...Conclusion:Con's objections to my refutations were either fallacies, or simply incorrect. Since my refutations did not go logically refuted, then they stand. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound.