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

IntroductionI appreciate my opponent's quick turnaround in this debate. I hope the readers enjoyed our interchange.Argument 1P1: A cause = A force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's [sic] effect in timeI would be amiable to Pro's description of causation if it didn't include force of nature. The reason is that he's injecting the conclusion into the premise. This is not equivalent to what KCA does when asserting the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Note how KCA's premise says nothing about the cause being natural or supernatural. KCA's position on cause is neutral; it makes no assumptions about the cause. Sure, it can be said that all observed causes are natural, but that doesn't suddenly mean we should define cause in such a way. To do so is premature.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 existPro says it is a greater leap to assert that a non-natural cause is even possible. Of course it's a great leap when you've already defined a cause as only natural. Pro has gone from mere observation to full elimination of any and all supernatural explanations. This is what I meant when contending P4. His argument is not leading to a natural-only conclusion; it's assuming it from the beginning.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)Read this premise carefully. It says there is no proof that a "before" is even possible. He is arguing from a lack of evidence here to assert that nothing existed prior to the universe to cause it during an argument meant to prove that nothing existed prior to the universe to cause it. That's circular reasoning. Argument 1 is supposed to prove the very thing that P4 relies upon.Pro's argument enhances the meaning of cause and then commits to that enhanced definition for the remainder of the argument. As a result, we have an argument that is self-fulfilling. It's bound lead to the conclusion because the conclusion is already in the first premise, i.e., circular reasoning.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.Pro said his sources confirmed that there is no law governing the singularity. I searched both articles and could find no positive confirmation that no such law exists. However, both articles speak about how general relativity breaks down at the singularity. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, this premise is making a huge assumption in stating there is absolutely no law governing the singularity.He says that if I reject the notion that no laws govern the singularity then I'm rejecting the idea of the Big Bang altogether. Again, I read the articles and that is simply an unfounded assertion. It is logically compatible to allow for at least the possibility of an unknown law governing the singularity than to just conclude there is no law whatsoever based on a lack of evidence, especially when such assumptions are being used to determine the nature of God's existence.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 themPro did not respond to my contentions that he misused Bell's Theorem in support of these premises, so I extend them to this round.P4: Since things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused, there is no reason to believe the universe's existence had a causePro claims it's more reasonable to believe this premise than not to believe it despite the fact that a sub-atomic thing containing all energy and mass is drastically different from a sub-atomic particle with virtually no mass swimming in a pocket of energy. I assert that it requires the utter abandonment of reason to assert that these would behave the same way without more evidence to support it.Since P2 and P4 are false, conclusions P5 and P6 have not been proven true.Argument 4P5: Causes stop at the beginning of the universeCorrection: natural causes stop at the beginning of the universe. This is the only valid conclusion that can be made from P1 through P4. Since the argument is trying to prove there are no supernatural causes, then this generalized claim cannot be used. Just like Argument 1, this is circular reasoning.P6: There are no ways for a cause to exist before t=0 (especially considering you need forces of nature, matter and time for causes to exist according to all observation of the universe)Argument 4 is now borrowing from the premises of Argument 1. Premises P1 through P5 make no mention of forces of nature, yet again, Pro insists this is the case. Argument 4, therefore, is just Argument 1 in different clothes. Yet again, it suffers from using its intended conclusion within the premises.Since P5 and P6 are false, conclusions P7 and P8 have not been proven true.ConclusionMy opponent concludes his last round by reiterating that if his observations about causes are invalid, then the same goes for KCA and he wins either way. That is just wishful thinking on his part. KCA does use natural observations, but it does not needlessly confine those observations to reach only natural conclusions. Pro is the one that insists round after round that everything must be put into the box of naturalism without warrant. Both KCA and Pro are observing that all effects in our universe are caused. Both KCA and Pro reach a first cause scenario. KCA simply follows the evidence. Since all things in the universe are caused, then there must be a cause of the universe. This is a parsimonious conclusion. It requires the least amount of assumption. Pro, on the other hand, does not follow the evidence. He insists, one way or the other, that the causes come to a halt, and does so by injecting a needless assumption that "if there can't be a natural cause, then there isn't one." These are the two approaches before the voters. The question becomes, are KCA and Pro's argument irrevocably linked such that if Pro fails KCA fails also? If you truly are convinced the answer is yes, then you should vote Pro. However, even if you think KCA is not a good argument, if you can agree with me that Pro's arguments make their own fallacies wholly apart from KCA, then Pro has not met his burden and you are justified in voting Con.Thank you.