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

The opponent states that "InVinoVeritas does not understand the Cosmological Argument." On the contrary, not only do I understand the argument, but I also understand the fallacies on which the argument is founded, and this "understanding" is what I am trying to get across in this debate. I would also like to point out that attacking me based on my opponent's perception of my understanding of the concept is not germane to the actual matter at hand, whatsoever. Contrary to my opponent's belief, my objections are extremely legitimate, and his refutations are blatantly unsound, from a logical standpoint. I will show this to the readers in my refutations: Objection I: Actually, this is completely relevant to the matter at hand. If "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and God is the only thing that is exempt from this rule, then:(1) "Everything has a cause, expect God." (2) "The universe is not God."(3) "The universe, therefore, has a cause."Not having a cause is equated to God, since he is the only member of the set, so this logic can be derived. This clearly shows the circular reasoning that theists use to support KCA. Indeed, this is simply begging the question, a flawed premise imbedded in an overall flawed argument. The argument assumes that God is the exception to its rule of causality, and that is a central flaw.The Thomas Aquinas argument attempts to prove God's timelessness based on the premise that God is "simple (or immutable.)" This, too, is begging the question by applying God's traits in the premise to determine further traits. Other than through scripture (which has yet to be proven as a valid source by the opponent), there is no way of supporting the idea that God is, indeed, simple/immutable. How do we know that God never changes? In what way does he/it not change? Through ambiguous phrasing and presupposing traits, this argument pretends (and fails) to be legitimate. Objection II:In his brick wall example, the opponent simply proves that sometimes the components of a whole have traits that mirror that of the whole. The reason that we know why the brick wall example is logically sound, though, is that, through practice, it is proven.But when we do not know the nature of the whole, can we use traits of the components to determine the whole's traits? How can we assume that the components of the universe have traits that reflect those of the universe in its entirety? No. We can not assume that, when trying to determine the traits of X, that its components A, B, and C's will have the same traits. It is maintained that the KCA is founded on a fallacy of composition. Objection III:Scientists discovered that particles of energy may come into existence in empty space, completely uncaused. [1] Another exception to the law of cause and effect can be found in the decay of Carbon-14 atoms; after every interval of 5730 years, half of the Carbon-14 present in a given measurement will have decayed into Nitrogen-14. All of these carbon atoms are completely identical, yet they decay at different times. Why? If all the atoms are exactly the same, shouldn’t they decay at precisely the same time? Since they do not, a vast majority of scientists stand by the idea that atomic decay is spontaneous (and therefore uncaused.) [2] This contradicts the cause-and-effect basis of the KCA. ---The KCA is proven, so far, to be fallacy-ridden, unsound argument that does not prove the existence of God. Thank you. ---[1] http://universe-review.ca...[2] Pages 123-125, Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis, Prometheus Books 2007.