The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

IntroductionIt is not unfair that I get to argue last, as the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the theist's argument. In order for an argument to be rebutted in a debate, it only makes sense for the argument to be presented first. My opponent throwing the last round is only fair so we have the same amount of rounds; I threw the first round. Also, it seems rather rude to accept a debate, and then complain about the rules after. Either way, lets get to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Did The Universe Have A Beginning?Pro states:"The necessity for something to begin to exist is paramount for its own existence otherwise you assume it has been present for an infinite amount of time which would not agree with scientific principle, which is clearly shown from the big bang theory" - ProThe problem with this argument is that the singularity predicted by The Big Bang theory is easily resolvable assuming a quantum theory of gravity. Take the paper “Singularity Resolution in Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Brief Overview” by Abhay Ashtekar[1], this explains how this is easily achieved. Actually, the common view in cosmology is that the singularity will be resolved. As Physicist John Barrow notes: "It is widely expected that this new improved theory [involving Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterised Einstein’s theory." - John Barrow[2]This means that eternal inflation (into the past) is possible; which completely avoids a beginning. Many scientists take this very seriously. For instance, Anthony Aguirre and his team evaded the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem by postulating a reversal of time at the crucial point[3]. Their could have been an infinite string of contractions and expansions of the universe before this one. Nothing in science rules that out, and people involved with figuring a theory of quantum gravity take it very seriously. "Non the less the proof of the universe spontaneously existing has actually been proven by the plethora of helium in the universe (from fusion) and other reasons." - ProThat does nothing to undermine an infinite string of contractions and expansions, where everything "resets" at each expansion. Also, even if our universe won't collapse, that says nothing about the universe prior to the expansion (and the collapses and expansions before that). Did The Universe Have A Cause?My opponent didn't argue very well for a beginning of the universe, because most physicists believe that the singularity predicted by The Big Bang will be resolved with a quantum theory of gravity. This means that the universe could have been expanding and contracting forever before the expansion of the universe we see today. But, lets assume for the sake of argument that the universe did have a beginning, why assume it must have had a cause? Pro states:"Now to convince you the Universe has a cause, you can logically infer this point from proving the universe exists otherwise logic itself would collapse and the whole need to structure anything in some sort of coherent manner would be pointless. "This seems like a non-sequitur fallacy. Why would everything be pointless and illogical if the universe didn't have a cause? We know that everything within the universe has some sort of cause, but to say the universe as a whole did based on that would be a fallacy of composition. The idea of the universe not having a cause violates none of the deductive or inductive rules of logic. It's hard to see how an uncaused beginning would be so illogical. "An entity (no matter what form) had to have initiated or created the universe otherwise the universe was created out of nothing, although the universe itself does not conform to the laws of physics and mathematics, we do thus meaning a creator who potentially programmed us with these set of laws like a computer, spending endless hours defining parameters and as he gains more experience the universe expands until eventually the amount of power required is so vast everything comes collapsing on itself. - ProA creator is not needed though, this is just a violation of Occam's Razor. Also, if the universe was uncaused, that doesn't necessarily mean it came from nothing. Assume for the sake of argument that all physical reality had an uncaused beginning at The Big Bang. Most theists would seem to think that this infers that the universe came from nothing. I see no justification for this claim. If the universe came from nothing, then:“At first, absolutely nothing exists, and ‘then’, the first state (or interval of time) of the universe exists and expands.”This seems to be what perplexes people the most. If there is absolutely nothing, then how can something just randomly appear out of nothingness? This “something from nothing” scenario is one that I don’t find required in the first place. Instead of:Scenario 1: “At first, absolutely nothing exists, and ‘then’, the first state (or interval of time) of the universe exists and expands.”One can just assume:Scenario 2: “At first, the first state (or interval of time) of the universe exists and expands.”In Scenario 2 we don’t start off with nothing because if we start with nothing; we get nothing (assuming ex nihilo nihil fit). We simply start off with the first state of the universe itself. In this scenario the universe doesn’t “come from” something or “come from” nothing; it simply doesn’t “come from” at all. This holds regardless of the universe and the finitude of its past. Therefore if the universe had a beginning and was uncaused, the atheist isn’t committed to the notion that something came from nothing. Now, Pro says:"Furthermore the ability for us to be able to produce computers and robotics also suggests the possibility of a creator and possibly of higher intellect since this entity has designed us to learn develop emotions and think for ourselves which is the ultimate obstacle for us to creating synthetic humans." - ProMy opponent cannot just argue possibilities here, my opponent actually has to show that God exists through the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Also, the reason we have emotions and can think for ourselves is due to the survival mechanisms drummed into us by evolution. This is due to natural processes (like natural selection), and have nothing to do with an intelligent designer as far as we can tell. ConclusionMy opponent has failed to show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument. I showed that no premise of the argument has been established by Pro in this debate. Sources[1] http://arxiv.org...[2] John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), page 290[3] http://arxiv.org...