The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Russell's ParadoxMy opponent's final objection to Russell's Paradox is that he offered a definition of the word "thing" which would include the universe, and his case would be even further established by the fact that if there is a multiverse, our universe would be distiguishible from other universes. However, my opponent himself in Round 3 claimed:"Con, himself, realizes that the traditional definition of universe is in mind here with the KCA. This is appropriate..." It seems clear that that apealing to other definitions of the universe (which one would have to do in order to appeal to a multiverse) isn't very logical when dealing with the Kalam Cosmlogical Argument in this context. Thus, even though my opponent would be correct that if the multiverse existed, the universe would be a "thing" due to it being distuinguishible, I already made it known my opening round that the Russll's Paraodox argument appeals to the traditional definition of the word "universe". Therefore, my opponent's apeal to a multiverse here is ultimimately irrelavent.Now, Pro claims that the six sides of a cube are all "things" and the cube that is made up of these sides is a "thing" is as well, this is supposed to be analogous to the idea that all the parts of the universe are "things" because if they didn't exist, the main "thing" the universe wouldn't exist. However, the implications of this analogy goes against the traditional definition of the universe (which my opponent concedes, is appropriate for this debate), which is the totality, or sum of every "thing" that exists. This means, that the universe by definition cannot be a "thing" because if it was, it couldn't be the set of all "things" due to itself being a "thing". A better analogy than Pro's involving a cube, would be to look at a "cube" as:(i) A set containing 6 sides, and involving only 6 sides in total necessarilyWe'll translate this to:(ii) A set containing 6 x's, and involving only 6 x's in total necessarilyIt would be a logical contradiction to call a "cube" an x, because if it was, then we would be talking about an x containining 6 x's, and involving only 6 x's necessarily. This is contradictory, because an x containining 6 x's would be 7 x's in total, but a "cube" in this context can only involve 6 x's in total necessarily. So with regards to this debate topic, the universe is the set of all x's ("things") as commonly defined and therefore, cannot be an x ("thing") itself.Since my opponent's objections were simple mere misunderstandings of Russell's Paradox, the argument still firmly stands.P1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause The fact that the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most widely accepted interpretation by physicists, and that the Uncertainty Principle allows uncaused events to occur seems to not only undermine the first premise of the Kalam Cosmlogical Argument, but falsify. The argument we are debating isn't infering that everything that begins to exists probably has a cause, or most likely has a cause, but that everything that begins to exist must, and therefore, necessarily have a cause (on a priori grounds apparently). However, even the possibility of these quantum events being uncaused due to the fact that many physicists adhere to this notion, and the fact that this is allowed in physics seprerate from subjective opinon, disproves that everything that begins to exist must, and therefore necessarily have a cause. Also remember, theists believe that something can "begin to exist" even if it's not from absolute nothingness, like a chair. Thus, fluctuations can "begin to exist" even if it's not from absolute nothingness using the same logic.Now:"why is it only universes and subatomic particles that can come into existence uncaused? Why not trees or Beethovens?"In Alexander's Vilenkin's model of cosmic origins (which Pro failed to refute, and still stands), the universe begins as an uncaused quantum event and this is all allowed by current laws of physics. Trees and Beethovens popping into existence is allowed by no laws of physics. "Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know—the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness—a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility" - Heinz Pagals. American Physicist, an adjunct Professor of Physics at Rockefeller UniversityThere are other reasons, but I have limited space...My opponent's main claim here though, is the claim that I'm appealing to ignorance. Basically, just because I don't know exactly how these events could be caused, doesn't mean they are not. However, just because we don't know exacty how they events are uncaused, doesn't mean they are not. What reason is there to believe they are uncaused? Well, since these events are extremely counter-intuitive (it's inituition backing up this causal principle in the first place), and they clearly appear to be events without causes (unlike hearing a vase smash behind you), then if anyone is appealing to ignorance in favor of their position it's my opponent I'm afraid. It's more rational to accept the notion that not all principles obtained above the sub-atomic level necessarily hold at the sub-atomic level (look at relativity), than to outright reject uncaused events due to intuition gained above the sub-atomic level. P2: The Universe Began To ExistMy opponent fails to realize that his argument with regards to the the Second Laws of Thermodynamics does not rule out no boundary proposals. The universe could have a finite past, with a finite amount of usable energy, and still not have an actual beginning (like how a sphere has a finite surface, but no beginning point). It's not only an idea adhered to by Stephen Hawking, but by many other physicists as well. Anthony Aguirre proposed this idea is well an a paper called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal"