The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

Thanks for the debate - I will be breaking down my major contentions into 2 main pieces that mostly address the first premise of this argument and the many fallacies therein.Contention #1 - Circular Reasoning/Unstated Premise/Special PleadingThe first premise contains an unstated major premise that there are two categories, things that begin to exist (BE), and things that don't begin to exist (NBE). In order for the second category, things that didn't begin to exist, to be meaningful in any way, you would need to demonstrate that there exists something that didn't "begin". I'm not aware of anything that didn't begin to exist, and I'm not aware that such a category is meaningful in any way. To say that god is the only thing in this category that didn't begin to exist is special pleading. I don't and can't accept this unstated premise until it's demonstrated that this second category contains anything, and in order to do this you need to demonstrate it contains something other than god otherwise you are assuming god in your first premise and begging the question."To say that NBE must accommodate more than one item is not to say that it must contain more than one item. The set might actually contain only one of the eligible candidates. The cosmological argument could be made successful if it could be shown that NBE contains exactly one item from a plural set of possibilities, and if the winning candidate turns out to be a personal creator. The question of accommodation is not whether the set does not contain more or less than one item; it's whether it can not contain other than one. If it can not, then the argument is circular. It would be like a dictator staging an election that permits no other candidates but himself: it's rigged from the start." (1)Contention #2 - Fallacy of Composition/EquivocationRelated to contention #1, the first premise refers to "everything" that exists. This is referring to all of the "things" in the universe - but what this also does is place the universe itself into that group in the third premise. This is the fallacy of composition to say that the traits of the set are also the traits of the whole, and the fallacy of equivocation to talk about the universe "beginning to exist" in the same way all the "things" in the universe "begin to exist"."Example: "Each part of an airplane has the property of being unable to fly. Therefore the airplane has the property of being unable to fly." The conclusion doesn't follow because the only way to determine whether the airplane has the property of being able to fly or not would be to get outside the plane (set) and then make observations. Unfortunately we are stuck inside the universe, so any conclusions we can draw about individual components of the universe (within the set) do not necessarily apply to the set as a whole. Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo. But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of one in this category, leaving no inductive support for the premise that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause". Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this: 1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.3. Therefore the universe has a cause. In other words: 1. Every X has a cause.2. The universe Y.3. Therefore the universe has a cause." (2) It also seems to make no sense to talk about causality without the concept of time, as the big bang was a creation of both time and space, so to say that god "caused" the universe to begin before there was even time, seems to me to be a nonsensical statement you would have to elaborate on. Causality is a notion that requires time, so how could god 'cause something' in the way you describe, without it?Sources(1) http://www.infidels.org... (2) http://wiki.ironchariots.org...