The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not sound

The Kalam Cosmological Argument was layed out in my opponent's last argument. In order to win this debate, I have to show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument does indeed work and is sound. In this round, I will lay out my case in favor of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I will respond to criticisms in the third and fourth rounds. The Universe Began to Exist The core of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is about the existence of existence. It should be clear that the universe exists. After all, we, as humans, perceive reality, therefore we exist. That is fairly simple, and I don't believe my opponent would dispute that. Futhermore, it is also clear that the universe began to exist. The standard and widely accepted theory is the Big Bang theory. According to this theory, the universe began to exist at time t (about 14 billion years ago). The universe existed at time t and did not exist at any point before time t [1]. So, according to the standard theory of the development of the universe, the universe did begin to exist. Again, I would be surprised if my opponent disputed this.So, the premise that the universe began to exist has been proven. There doesn't seem to be much dispute that the universe began to exist. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause The next premise that I must prove is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is obviously true. So, we have defined beginning to exist as something that exists at time t that did not exist at any point before time t. Let us take the example of a chair, that my opponent referenced in his last argumentNow, first, the question of whether or not a chair even exists must be adressed. After all, as my opponent pointed out, what is a chair but a rearrangement of previously existing matter?He is right about this. A chair is just rearranged matter. In fact, if you really think about it, everything, including humans themselves, are simply rearranged matter. Does that mean that we don't exist? We, as humans, decide what exists and what doesn't exist to ourselves. You could say that the whole idea of existence is totally subjective. But, that does not mean that existence doesn't exist. After all, clearly, we as humans can perceive a reality. The very fact that we can perceive this reality means that something exists. Furthermore, to go back to the example of a chair, existence of a chair is defined as matter taking that particular shape. Before that chair existed, the matter that made up that chair existed, but the chair itself did not. Only when the matter came into the shape of that chair did the chair exist. So, yes, things do come into existence. Now, all things that begin to exist in any way do have a cause. For a chair to exist, someone or something must have caused that chair. The action that leads to something existing does not necessarily have to be rational or in any way "thought out". In fact, most things that began to exist were caused by totally non human, non intelligent forces. But, still, everything that has began to exist has had a cause. There is not a single thing that exists in any way, shape, or form that did not have a cause. Everything that exists according to everyone had some cause to create this existence. So, everything that begins to exist does, indeed, have a cause. Therefore, the Universe has a Cause Given that we have shown both that the universe began to exist and that everything that began to exist has a cause, we can conclude that, indeed, the universe has a cause. Conclusion I have shown why the Kalam Cosmological Argument is valid. I eagerly await my opponent's response. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...