The Cosmological Argument Is Sound

I apologize for the delay. I have personal things going on in my life that have kept me from this debate, which will probably be my last.Premise OneI had assumed Con was already upon this understanding, I guess I was wrong. It's hardly a fallacy either, as the argument above is a summary, and far from a complete exposition of it. Things will naturally have to be explained.Infinity cannot exist because you would never get to the beginning. Imagine if you will an infinite past of many different universes. Right now, lets say that the universe we exist in is universe D. What universe was the first universe? You would think A, but no, there are an infinite amount of universes, so we would say A, and then go to Z, Y, X, W and so on till you read A once again, only to continue, for infinity.Premise TwoCon would like to think that there can be no state before the big bang, but this is far from the truth. The metaphysical can exist before the Big Bang, such as quantum mechanics or God. The singularity had to have been caused by something or it has always existed. If it has always existed, then there would have to be an infinite regression of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. But because that is impossible as I have shown you, there must be something metaphysical as the First Principle.So lets trace through the regression of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, till we find that first point in reality, be it physical or metaphysical. This is what the debate is about. I say that there must be something metaphysical that is the foundation of the physical singularity. And it has to be either non-sentient or sentient.William Lane Craig has also spoken more in-depth about Quentin Smith's argument here: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...Premise ThreeAs I said earlier in this round, the formula for my argument is a summary, and nowhere near a complete exposition, so there is true-dichotomy.Premise FourThere is no appeal to ignorance. What I cited there is evidence against a non-sentient First Principle, not the lack of evidence."The non-sentient First Principle must have been at one point, not causing instances of change in reality, otherwise the fallacy of infinity occurs. A non-sentient First Principle is incapable of willing itself to activation, to causing instances of change in reality. All examples of non-sentient mechanisms in nature show that they simply exist, or are caused to activate, and do not merely activate on their own."As you can see here, there is a context, and Con is taking what I said out of context. In the beginning, the First Principle had to have been not in motion. So it had to activate, go into motion. After that I said that there are no examples of natural non-sentient mechanisms being able to do this, and that they are always caused to activate or that they simply are. I am not simply saying that there is no example of a natural non-sentient mechanism causing itself to go into motion, I am saying it is illogical, it can't be.Con wants to bring up the Uranium bit, but this example is about the Uranium decaying, and not coming into existence on its own. There is a big difference. This is also an element, I'm not talking about elements but natural laws, mechanics, things that are not observable.Premise Five The sentient being having the ability to imagine a reality outside of its own is just an example alongside of the ability to will.Will is relevant because before anything was in motion, before any instances of change in reality, there was none. This includes the metaphysical workings of reality as well. I believe it would take a will in order for all of this motion to happen in the first place.MiscellaneousCon's argument for God needing a first thought is as ridiculous as the question of: Who created God? It's irrelevant. God has always been, God is purest form of reality. And a mind is still a mind, so God would still be self-aware of His existence even if there was required a first thought. So His self-awareness is the first initial point in reality.