The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be logically refuted, using the same logic as the argument itelf

IntroductionMy opponent intends to use the same logical format as the Kalām Cosmological Argument1 (KCA) to refute its conclusion. By "same logical format," my opponent means to use what we know thus far in the natural universe to inductively conclude that a personal creator does not exist. Looking at his three arguments so far, I think's it fair to say these three arguments do indeed follow the same general format as KCA. Thus, we need only to examine each one to see if they are logically sound.For my rebuttal, I will copy & paste only those premises I find invalid for the benefit of the readers, followed by my reasons for my contention.Argument 1P1: A cause = A force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's [sic] effect in timeP1 commits the fallacy of redefinition. A cause is a "producer of an effect, result, or consequence."2 Pro's definition is rather convenient, since built into it is the notion that a cause must be natural. It will become apparent that this leads to question begging.P3: For a cause of the beginning of the universe to be possible, the properties which make a cause possible must have been present "before" the universe began to existThis is only true based on Pro's arbitrary and non-scholarly definition of a cause. If we take cause at its more common meaning, then P3 is necessarily false because the cause could have other properties such as it being supernatural.P4: The properties needed that make a cause possible did not exist "before" the universe began to exist (there is no proof that a "before" the universe is even possible)This entire argument is meant to prove that there is no personal creator, but P4's supporting evidence is that there's no proof anything existing before the universe which would include a personal creator? Isn't that what the debate is about? This is clearly circular reasoning.P5: The universe's beginning had no cause, cause and effect is only something that occurs once the universe already exists.Again, this is based on Pro's bias definition of a cause.Since P1, P3, P4 and P5 are false, conclusions P6 and P7 have not been proven true.Argument 2P3: No law governs the big bang singularity, so consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.The singularity is the result of "extrapolating the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity,"3 which "yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past." We call this the singularity, and it "signals the breakdown of general relativity."It is disingenuous to say that no law governs the singularity, for such a statement implies that he have positive knowledge that nothing governs the singularity when in fact the opposite is true. The singularity is the product of known laws whose variables have reached their limits, i.e., it is the name given to what we don't know. It's not that we know there is no law, it's that we don't know there is a law, and that's an important difference since arguing from a lack of knowledge commits the argument from ignorance fallacy.Since P3 is false, conclusions P5 and P6 have not been proven true.Argument 3P1: At the sub-atomic level, virtual particles "begin to exist" uncausedP2: We know these fluctuations are uncaused, because of the Bell's Theorem which tells us that there are no hidden variables causing themBoth of these premises ought to be considered one premise. P2 is actually support for P1, so I'll rebut both of these simultaneously.P2 is based on a faulty application of Bell's Theorem4. A proper look at Bell's Theorem actually disproves P1. Bell's theorem states that "the predictions of quantum theory (for measurements of spin on particles prepared in the singlet state) cannot be accounted for by any local theory." The proof of this theory is a two-part proof combining the EPR argument with Bell's Inequalities. Bell himself defined locality as "The direct causes (and effects) of events are near by, and even the indirect causes (and effects) are no further away than permitted by the velocity of light."Bell is proving that there exists a "contradiction between the empirical predictions of quantum theory and the assumption of locality." All his theory proves is that the assumptions under relativity don't necessarily hold at the quantum level. There is nothing whatsoever about this theory proves that quantum fluctuations are not caused.P4: Since things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused, there is no reason to believe the universe's existence had a causeP4 commits the fallacy of equivocation. Notice how he uses sub-atomic "things" in this premise when he used sub-atomic "particles" in P1. The hot dense state of the universe surely cannot be assumed to behave exactly as a sub-atomic particle simply because of its size. Calling it sub-atomic doesn't make it anywhere close to the same thing as a sub-atomic particle.Since P2 and P4 are false, conclusions P5 and P6 have not been proven true.ConclusionPro has yet to satisfy his burden for all three of his arguments. Unless he can account for the errors in his premises or refute my contentions, the resolution remains negated.Thank you.Sources http://plato.stanford.edu... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://tinyurl.com...