The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I thank Pro for their last reply.1) That which begins to exist has a cause & The universe as a whole has a causePro in their final round says..."All Con has done to attack premise one is ask how do we know there isn't other stuff outside of this universe?" This is just a blatant mis-characterisation of my objections to Pros argument is this area.My main critique of this premise was how it goes from what happens inside the universe to making absolute meta physical claims of what is metaphysical possible and impossible outside of the universe. I bought up the composition fallacy showing that its just as fallacious to think that a plane as a whole can't fly cause its parts can't fly as it is to think that the universe as a whole has a cause the parts within the universe begin to exist have a cause. I also bought up the fallacy of appealing to incredulity/non inconceivability to establish the metaphysical impossibility that what ever begins to exist (outside the universe or the universe as a whole) has a cause. As such I submit Pro has not been able to establish that what ever begins to exist has a cause is an absolute metaphysical truth outside and beyond our universe and as such it it has not been establish that even if the universe as a whole began to exist it must have a cause.2) The universe began to existI still don't see how my concept of what it means for something to begin to exist has been refuted. Pro is entitled to apply mathematical constructs to the universe and establish a "zero point" mathematically speaking. My argument has been that there was never a time where the universe did not exist ( a point that Pro agrees with) therefore the universe did not "begin" to exist. To take a page out of Pros book the universe as a whole can have a mathematical zero point but never the less it has always existed, although bizarre its not contradictory.As such it has not been established that the universe "began" to exist.But what if for argument and curiosity sake there was a cause of the universe, how well did Pro go from cause to God ? Not that well I think.Must the cause be maximally powerful and maximally intelligent ?Pro concedes insufficient justification for describing the cause as such.Description of the cause of the universe & Occam's RazorPro again mis applies occams razor. For example if something moves 100 kilos then its only necessary to describe that something as being able to move 100 kilos, you wouldn't say oh it can move one hundred kilos therefore it must be able to move 2000 kilos or even possess unlimited strength. Pro says..."I referenced Ockhams Razor in that the only entity said to exist external of space-time, yet space-times creator is God and therefore, if the KCA is true, gives us a sufficient cause."That's not true, I threw out the possibility of the cause of the universe being not maximally powerful and not all knowing and also maybe not personal.If it can only be shown the cause has to be very powerful then its unjustified to attribute the cause as having maximal power.If the cause does not need intelligence or knowledge then its unjustified to attribute intelligence or knowledge to the cause.If the cause does not need to be personal then its unjustified to claim the cause possess personhood.I think its also worth pointing out if you are claiming that you can prove that God is the cause of the universe then you have to prove that, you don't get to use God as the default answer absent any other hypothesis lest you commit the God of the gaps fallacy..."God of the gaps is a type of theological fallacy in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to discourage reliance on teleological arguments for God's existence" [1]Must the cause be timeless and space less ?They are not what if questions, they are what is shown to be necessary vs possible. Pro admits that the cause of the universe could exist in a time/space separate from our own as such it can't be said that the cause MUST be timeless/space less.A mind without a brain ?Its not that I had questions for Pro to answer here, it was that observations/evidence don't support Pros claim that a mind without a brain that creates physical objects from nothing exist. Those observations include...1) Religious claims/ claims said to have come from the mind of God are contradictory. This is what we would expect to happen if such a mind did not exist.2) The Unfalsifiability of these religious/God mind claims and as such the adherents of these claims can never know nor be proved to be wrong. 3) We don't see testable falsifiable claims been made by a supreme mind that can be confirmed. If we had evidence of people repeatedly gaining knowledge and making claims that are confirmed and falsifiable and those people were not getting their information from the usual observations/scientific method then clearly we would have established another way of gaining reliable knowledge and this could be used as evidence in support that some sort of supreme intellect & mind without a brain exists. But we don't observe this happening which is what we would expect if such a mind did not exist.4) Minds can't produce physical objects from nothing. Even though time after time we have evidence that minds don't produce physical objects from nothing did Pro just think God would be given a special exemption from this observation ? I am certainly not allowing a special exemption.Pro I think realises that the evidence is not on their side on this one but rather relies on philosophical argument to prove that a mind without a brain that creates physical objects from nothing exists. Trouble is I am contesting those various philosophical premises.....Must the cause be personal ?Pro says..."1. The cause as stated before must be external of space and time" No Pro agrees that its possible that a cause of our universe exists in a time/space separate from our own.Pro says..."Numbers cannot create but do exist outside of time and space. Abstract objects are completely causally impotent. Therefore it follows that the cause is an unembodied mind (person hood)."No it doesn't follow, cause minds don't create physical objects from nothing.Craig's argument is an appeal to incredulity/inconceivability to justify the absolute metaphysical impossibility of a non personal timeless cause and a temporal effect as Craig asks..."How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?."The fact that we don't know nor understand and maybe can't conceive how a non personal timeless cause can produce a temporal effect in no way proves this metaphysical claim by William Craig anymore than people couldn't understand how the earth couldn't be any other shape than flat proves that the earth is flat. As such its possible that a non personal timeless cause can produce a temporal effect so it has not been established that the cause of the universe (if it has one) is personal and thus it is not proven that the cause possess any intelligence and knowledge as this was claimed on the assumption that the cause was personal.ConclusionI argued against that the universe as a whole must have a cause both on the grounds that the metaphysics that it is built on is unestablished and also that the universe did not "begin" to exist.I also argued even if the universe has a cause the argument does not provide sufficient warrant to believe that God is or is best described as the cause as Pro defined God as..."The supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"I submit for your judgment that the resolution has been negated.I thank Pro for the debate.Vote ConSources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...