The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence

Thank you, Keytar Hero, for setting up such a wonderful defense of your argument. It's hard to delve into theology for longer than a minute without coming across this extremely popular, modernized rendition of the classic cosmological argument (excuse the hyperbole). So, without further ado, let's get to it...Debunking the Argument1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.It's a good thing philosopher have added that "begins to" saving grace since its first appearance centuries ago. Regardless of that, and your lacking warrant on the basis that this premise is "pretty uncontroversial" (which I must wholeheartedly disagree with; this is the premise most commonly attacked by opponents of the argument), I must say anyway that this premise does indeed fall short of its desired effect.Firstly, it should be pointed out that there is little to no warrant of this premise. And there hardly ever is no matter who is presenting it, be it Keytar Hero, Al-Kindni, or William Lane Craig. This is because, simply put, there is no valid warrant for it; it thrives off of our intuitions. "Of course everything that exists has a cause (oops, I mean "begins to exist" has a cause)! It just doesn't make sense to say otherwise!"However, a major part of thinking logically is to ignore our intuitions, at least until those intuitions can be justified, either evidentially or logically. Let's not forget that prior to a proper education, our intuitions would tell us the world is flat, the sun orbits the earth every day, and Justin Beiber should be executed for treason on music (upon further review, this moral view simply can't be justified, unfortunately...).Besides its lack of warrant, it tries to justify one type of causality from another entirely. What do I mean by that exactly? Let me clarify...Aside from labels humans place on concepts, it's clear to see that every "thing" is just an arrangement of energy and matter particles, a slightly different arrangement of energy and matter particles from its previous form a moment prior. Every "thing" that comes from a previous "thing" has a cause, of this much we can be plausibly sure. This would be concerning ex materia causality ("from pre-existing material").However, as my opponent justifies himself, the universe came into being ex nihilo ("from literally nothing"), not ex materia. Do things that come into being ex nihilo have a cause? How could they? They came form literally nothing at all!My opponent says "nothing cannot produce something without intervention from an outside force". This may sound intuitive, but nevertheless, it raises some problems for you...(A) How do you know that? Have you ever seen anything come into being ex nihilo?(B) "An outside force"? I think we're talking about two different kinds of "nothing"s here. Nothing means "no thing at all" (including "outside forces", whatever that means in this case... "outside" of what...?).Given this recent enlightenment, the first premise should read "Everything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause" unless my opponent can justifiably show how everything that begins to exist (both ex materia and ex nihilo) must have a cause.2) The universe began to exist.I'll charitably allow this premise to slide on the basis that it's most likely not false.3) Conclusion, therefore the universe had a cause.The conclusion is rendered invalid once the first premise is corrected to fit our actual knowledge on the matter.Debunking the jump from "cause" to "God"First and foremost, my opponent provides no justification for why this God must have been "intelligent" and not "dumb, but slightly lucky". Think that sounds like a joke? I'm being serious. We could imagine literally thousands upon thousands of explanations for the cause of the universe, each equally unwarranted by evidence.Second and foremost, my opponent states this in defense of why God doesn't need a cause according to the first premise: "The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, God is eternal. He has always existed and therefore has no cause."He always existed, did He? Well now, that seems to contradict a bit of information you passed onto us earlier... that an actual infinite cannot exist. I hope you don't mean to say that an actual infinite cannot exist, except for God. Please elucidate in the next round.(Yes, I realize I said "foremost" on both points; they are equally important.)Over to you, Keytar Hero. Play us some sick theology in A minor.