The Cosmological Argument for God is a bad argument and people need to stop using it

For this round I will be addressing my opponents points: "Before I address my opponent's rebuttals, I feel that some minor clarification is in order to clear up some confusion, which is probably my fault. My assertion that the Cosmological Argument should not be used was not in reference to any sort of formal debate protocol (i.e., Debate Police forbidding the use of the argument). My opinion is that the argument fails, for the reasons I've presented. " If the cosmological argument is being used concerning the existence of God, it is by necessity in the context of a debate as to whether or not God exists, therefore I feel my phrasing is appropriate. Whether or not the debate is formal, or between two friends is none of my concern. My opponent is trying to re-frame the premise of the debate, remember reader, that we are not arguing whether the cosmological argument is right or wrong, just whether or not it has no merit in a debate concerning the existence of God, and therefore should not be used. "'Whatever begins to exist has a cause' - is not true in the case of quantum fluctuations, or vacuum fluctuations, which are probabilistic energy changes that allow for particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles to appear out of nothing - without any cause. Indeed, it may well have been the mechanism by which the Universe was formed, though that's still in dispute." Since the cosmological argument is reliant on arguments concerning the beginning of the universe, if the argument in question that you have put forth is 'still in dispute', then that means it does not invalidate the cosmological argument, which also is being disputed. As far as I can tell, this argument does not sufficiently answer why these quantum fluctuations and other phenomenon exist in the first place. The cosmological argument seems to expect the participant to push back the question as far as it will go, making it a useful rhetoric to use in a debate concerning the existence of God. "My opponent's statement, '...the "something" capable of creating the universe would have to have many, if not all, of the attributes of God...' cannot be justified unless you: 1. Define the particular deity we're talking about...[.] 2. Explain how one can determine the attributes of this deity...[.]" This is exactly right. And if we were debating the existence of God, we would do just that. As long as it is possible to define the deity being argued for, and arrive at a list of the diety's attributes, then this argument put forth by my opponent in no way discards the cosmological argument from a debate concerning the existence of God, which he himself admits here. However, we are debating whether or not the cosmological argument should or should not be used concerning the existence of God. So to define God and start debating as though we were arguing whether or not the cosmological argument were true, would be to re-frame this debate. "However, this ignores [...] I don't need to prove that everything (as opposed to the observable universe) did not have a cause; I only need to point out that we cannot say that everything (all of existence) necessarily did have a cause or began to exist - we simply don't know enough about everything to make the claim because all of our experience with cause and effect is limited to the observable universe." It is my opinion that this invalidates the argument that the cosmological argument is so flawed that it should be discarded. Remember, this would only make it a possibility that the argument was wrong, since this statement itself is only a possibility. If anything this strengthens my argument that the cosmological argument is still worthy of keeping in a debate concerning the existence of God. "And even when using both usages of the word "Universe", the second premise doesn't work. If we interpret the word to mean 'all that exists', we can't scientifically say whether it does or does not have a cause (and if it's really "all that exists", wouldn't that include God, too?). If we limit the meaning to just the observable universe, the First Cause would only need to be powerful enough to create all that we can observe. Very powerful, yes - but all-powerful, as described by classical monotheism? Not necessarily. " Again, I'm not here to support the correctness or the incorrectness of the cosmological argument, just whether or not it is so flawed a rhetoric that it must be discarded as a support concerning the existing of God. The fact that it has caused so much thought in you, my opponent, and that you can argue against it but not perfectly, causes me to believe it is a perfectly valid, and thought provoking argument. What's more, the reader has likely noticed that my opponent's arguments against the cosmological argument include phases like 'not necessarily' and 'still in dispute', and do not as yet exclude the cosmological argument from possibly being valid. So it leads me to believe that it is not a worthy argument in favor of discarding the cosmological argument altogether. "[Myself] '...the argument still points evidentially towards the possibility that there is a God.' [Pro Rebuts] It also points equally as evidentially towards the possibility that there are universe-creating fairies. [...]" That's none of our concern in this debate. It also supports evidentially, as you pointed out through agreement with my statement, that there is a possibility of a God, making the cosmological argument a supportive, and rhetorically useful argument in a debate concerning the existence of God. Closing statement for this round: I believe that my opponent has offered nothing here towards discarding the cosmological argument from being useful or valid as an argument or supporting argument for the existence of God. I am not convinced, nor do I think the reader will feel convinced, that the cosmological argument is no longer worth being included in such a debate. I feel my opponent will continue trying to argue for or against the correctness of the cosmological argument for the existence of God and remind the reader that that is not what is being argued here, but rather whether or not the argument should still be used in support of the existence of God.