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

Refuting my opponents arguments:"P1 commits the fallacy of redefinition. A cause is a "producer of an effect, result, or consequence. "2 Pro's definition is rather convenient, since built into it is the notion that a cause must be natural. It will become apparent that this leads to question begging. "I can see where my opponent may have got the impression that I'm redefining what a cause is, however I'm simply naming the properties that all known causes have and therefore only scientifically defining it. Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument is basing the contention "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" on what is observed in the universe, then it's only fair and logical for me to base the contention "a cause is force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time" based on what is observed in the universe. If my contention is illogical then the contention "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is illogical, and therefore I still refutted the Kalam Cosmological Argument. "This is only true based on Pro's arbitrary and non-scholarly definition of a cause. If we take cause at its more common meaning, then P3 is necessarily false because the cause could have other properties such as it being supernatural. "My apponent is committing the fallacy of assuming that a cause can be possible without a force of nature, matter and/ or time. There are no examples of a cause which are not a force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time, so therefore it's not logical to jump to the conclusion that this new radical type of causation is possible without evidence. Once more I'm basing this assumption on what is observed in the universe, just like the assumption "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is based on what is observed in the universe. If my opponent claims that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is logical then it's only logical that my contention (P1) is as well because it's based on the same thing: Observation within the universe"P4's supporting evidence is that there's no proof anything existing before the universe which would include a personal creator? Isn't that what the debate is about? This is clearly circular reasoning. "I'm not comprehending my opponent's argument here. .. I was stating that since all examples of causes involve a force of nature, matter and/or time, and these things didn't exist before the universe existed, therefore there is no logical reason to believe in a cause of the universe. I also stated that there is no evidence that a "before" is even possible, if this is the case then there definitely can be no God, therefore no personal creator. This is not circular reasoning. "Again, this is based on Pro's bias definition of a cause. "It's not a bias definition, it's the truth until refuted. All observations of the universe conclude that a cause is a force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time. I'm not changing the definition, I'm just stating things that all causes have in common. Con has not presented any evidence which refutes this contention other than I am changing the definition. The dictionary version of cause still stands in this debate, but that doesn't change my contention because my contention is true based on all observation of the universe. "Since P1, P3, P4 and P5 are false, conclusions P6 and P7 have not been proven true. "My opponent has not provided valid argument for my contentions being false:Reasoning:My opponent has not provided any evidence that a cause is possible without it being a force of nature acting on matter/ a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time. He simply accused me of redefining "cause" but did not actually refute the contention. Therefore my argument still stands logically unrefuted. Re-cap:"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is based on observation of the universe, so is my contention of what scientifically constitutes a cause so if my contention is false then so is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and either way, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been logically refuted. "It's not that we knowthere is no law, it's that we don't know there is a law, and that's an important difference since arguing from a lack of knowledge commits the argument from ignorance fallacy. "All I'm claiming is that according to The Big Bang theory, the singularity is not governed by any laws (as confirmed by my sources). If you do not believe that the singularity was not governed by any laws then you do not believe The Big Bang is true, therefore, the "the universe began to exist" contention of the Kalam Cosmological Argument would not have anything to back it up either. Either way, I have logically refuted The Kalam Cosmological Argument. "the hot dense state of the universe surely cannot be assumed to behave exactly as a sub-atomic particle simply because of its size. "I never claimed it had to behave the exact same way, I just said it's more likely to behave in the way sub-atomic particles would because they are on the same playing field as far as scale is concerned. Continuing my case:Additional ArgumentP1: Cause and effect is only something observed within the universe after it already existsP2: Causes are themselves effects, and therefore logically require a causeP3: P2 indicates infinite regress, but cause and effect relationships cannot go back forever because the universe is 13.7 billion years oldP4: If we follow all cause and effect relationships back in time they stop at t=0P5: Causes stop at the beginning of the universeP6: 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)P7: If there was no cause of the universe, then a personal God couldn't have caused the universe to existP8: A personal God does not existConclusion:1) My logic is not absolute, it is simply logical based on what we observe within the universe. If what is observed within the universe is not valid for an argument, then the Kalam Cosmological Argument cannot be valid because it's contentions are based on what is observed within the universe. Either:a) My contentions are true, and therefore logically refutes the Kalam Cosmological Argumentorb) My contentions are not true, and therefore making the Kalam Cosmological Arguments invalid because both sets of contentions are based on what is observed within the universe. a) or b) refutes the Kalam Cosmological Argument logically using the same logic as the argument itself, therefore I believe I have the upper hand in this debate.2) My opponent has not properly refuted my contentions and only implied that I was changing definitions, while not actually refuting the properties that I claimed all known causes have. Con also made many assertions which contradict many premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument itself. If certain contentions of mine are false then so are the ones that the Kalam Cosmoloigcal Argument makes because they are both based on observation within the universe. Either way I have shown that I can logically refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument using the same logical format as the Kalam Cosmological Argument itself.