The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Rebutting Pro's Arguments"P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C: The universe has a cause."The conclusion is universe has a CAUSE. And question is what is this CAUSE?"Pro has not even shown that the premises are true. The question of "what was the cause?" only has meaning if the premises have been established as true. Pro must prove that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and that the universe began to exist. He has not done this. "1. This Cause is eternal, because it exists out of time and space.2. This Cause is transcendental, because it exists out of time and space, it transcends time and space.3. This Cause is uncaused* therefore it is one.4. This Cause has a will, because this eternal and transcendental Cause bring into existence temporal and finite events, therefore chose to do so, and choice indicates will." We could only even begin to take this list seriously, if the universe did in fact have a cause. However, essentially all of my arguments against the Kalam Cosmological Argument have been ignored by Pro. Therefore, he essentially concedes the debate. He also hasn't even argued sufficiently for why the cause must have a will. He says that when it comes to the transcendental cause bringing into existence temporal and finite events, a choice follows from this. However, this is a non-sequitur logical fallacy. Even if there was a cause of the universe, it wouldn't follow from this logically that a choice must be involved. "So, Eternal, Transcendental, One, and Will - you can call this Cause anything you want, but rational people call this Cause (The) GOD."A cause of the universe hasn't been established true by Pro, let alone what the cause has to be. In his last round he simply lists the Kalam Cosmological Argument, again, without sufficiently defending it. He ignores all my arguments in the last round. Therefore, my arguments stand unscathed."I read all your sources and your arguments of course but it does not defeat or refute the P1."Simply stating that my arguments don't refute the argument is a bare-assertion fallacy. It actually has to be shown that my arguments are false. Pro must show why the esteemed physicists I quoted who reject the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which suggest the premise is not self-evident) are wrong, as Pro has the burden of proof in the debate."First of there many models of universe and ideas about Big Bang itself, and I cannot argue all of them, I mean even scientists does not agree within themselves which is true."Yes, but the Big Bang had no initial cause in Vilenkin's Model of cosmic origins. Either way, the fact that virtual particles were uncaused has not gone refuted by Pro. I quoted physicists to back my position up. " Just Alex V. said something does not make it true. "The plausibility of his model is backed up mathematically in the paper written by him that I sources. So, it his not just his words, we know mathematically and scientifically that his model is plausible. Either way, Pro has to prove the model false without begging the question as he has the burden of proof in this debate, or else God has not been established by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. "And all models cannot be true,at the same time. And vilenkin's model is just model, which is not proved to be the true model (factual and evidentual)."God isn't proven either, it is just a posited explanation for the universe; just like Vilenkin's model! I never said Vilekin's model is true, just that it is a plausible explanation. Since this explanation exists, then God has not been proven by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. If it was, then God would be the only explanation. Pro has not proven this to be the case, as he hasn't shown that a choice is required.ConclusionPro has not shown that the premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument are true, and I quoted many esteemed scientists who disagree with the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Since Pro has the burden of proof in the debate, Pro had to show that the common view regarding the lack of causality in quantum mechanics is false; he did not do this. Also, in my last round, I explained that even if the universe had a finite past, that doesn't mean it came into being. His arguments for God being able to be the only cause failed as well. Pro did not establish the resolution. Vote ConPS: As per the rules, Con is not allowed to argue next around in order to give us the same amount of rounds to argue. He must only put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed"Thank you for the debate.