The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Logically Sound

Thanks to my opponent for his defenses.Pro has used a slightly different version of the KCA for his argument, and, for the most part, that is fine, except for one thing... I object to the absence of the KCA's final and most essential conclusion: "God exists". The inclusion of that conclusion is the basis of one of my rebuttals to the KCA, so I will operate under the assumption that Pro merely forgot to mention it.With that out of the way, I will proceed with my rebuttals....LOGICAL VALIDITYThe version of the KCA presented by Pro is, indeed logically valid. However, if we include the conclusion "God exists", it immediately makes the KCA logically invalid, as the conclusion that God exists is a non-sequitir; it does not follow the premises leading up to it. Allow me to explain:Even if we assume that God was the first cause of the universe, there is no reason to assume that he still does exist. The God argued for in the KCA is simply the creator of the universe; he has no greater significance than that, so it is not implausible that he ended his existence after creating the universe. The conclusion that God exists in the present does not follow from the proposition that God created the universe.The KCA is logically invalid..LOGICAL SOUNDNESSHere, my main goal is to cast as much doubt as possible upon as many of the premises as possible in order to show that the KCA is unsound.R1) Refutation of Premise 1"That which begins to exist must have a first cause"Pro has wrongly assumed that this premise would not be contested, even though this is actually one of the most controversial premises of the KCA...The primary problem with this premise is that we do not have empirical evidence of its factual accuracy. As a result of the Laws of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Mass, we simply have never seen anything begin to exist, so we cannot assume that beginning to exist requires an external cause. Even things which seem to be "beginnings" on the surface are really just changes, either physical, chemical, or on a more fundamental level (sub-atomic). One might argue that if it were true that things can come into existence without cause, then we would frequently see it happen all around us. However, to argue as such is to ignore the fact that two things cannot exist in the same space; that something can't simply come into existence where there is something already there. Things can only come into existence where there is nothing there, and the latest developments in particle physics suggest that there is no such thing as "nothing" in our universe because even in what appears to be a complete vacuum, there is still a positive energy density, known as the Cosmological Constant [1]. Thus, it is impossible for us to observe things pop into existence within our universe, simply because the entirety of the space within our universe is already occupied. In conclusion, I have thoroughly shown that there is no reason to accept the preliminary premise of the KCA. This alone refutes the entire argument's logical soundness, but nonetheless, I will continue with my rebuttals.R2) Refutation of Premise 2"The Universe began to exist"As expected, Pro supported the KCA's second premise via the Big Bang, and he would be right in saying that it has been pretty well-established scientifically that a big bang happened, especially given recent developments in cosmology. However, he is wrong in assuming that the occurrence of a Big Bang proves that the Universe had a beginning. There are some very viable cyclical models of cosmology that involve big bangs, yet allow for the universe to be eternal and without beginning. One example of this which has ample following in the scientific community is the Bouncing Branes model [2]. Thus, the second premise of the KCA is not necessarily true.R3) Refutation of Premise 3"If the Universe has a first cause, that first cause must be God"For the purposes of refuting this, I will be assuming that the the first conclusion is true (i.e. the universe has a first cause).This seems to be the premise that Pro devoted the majority of his argument defending. He presents the case that the first cause of the universe must either be abstract or personal, and since abstract objects are intangible and cannot interact with reality, the first cause must have been personal.However, this case is clearly based on a false dichotomy; the first cause of the universe can also be some sort of unconscious process which is capable of interacting with reality, such as simultaneous causation or the instability of nothingness (i.e. the idea that the state of nothingness is inherently unstable and demands the existence of "something" to fill it). To limit the options to either being abstract or being personal is to exclude quite a few possible first causes of the Universe.The third premise of the KCA has its basis in a logical fallacy..CONCLUSIONI have demonstrated why the KCA is logically invalid as well as cast substantial doubt upon each of the KCA's three premises. Thus, the KCA simply cannot be a logically sound argument.I hand the debate back over to my opponent.Good luck, Pro!SOURCES [1] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...[2] http://www.physics.princeton.edu... (page 5)