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

Debunking the argumentMy opponent says I've somehow used equivocation, the logical fallacy of using more than one definition of a word to confuse the issue, because I differentiate between ex meteria creation and ex nihilo creation. This is simply not the case; it's more fallacious to try to lump these two categories into one and act as if they are the same thing when in fact they are not."It is equivocation to state that something can come into being from pre-existing materials, but not from nothing," KeytarHero tells us. "Coming into existence is coming into existence."I guess it's also equivocation to state that some people can naturally produce sperm while others cannot? After all, people are people. If I were to assert the premise "Every person can naturally produce sperm" you'd be justified to disagree, saying "While it is true that adult males can naturally produce sperm, women cannot". Your premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is equally objectionable. While it's plausibly true that things which begin to exist ex materia have a cause, there is no reason to believe things which begin to exist ex nihilo have a cause.You remind us of the principle of causality, that every cause has an effect. "A car is not a car until it is constructed," you say. "A hunk of metal is not a car, and won't become a car until someone sets out to construct it." True, but need I remind you these are all ex materia creations. Can you give us a similar example, but with an ex nihilo creation?If what you say is true, that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes and effects, then there must be an uncaused effect (an effect that didn't come from a cause, but from nothing at all). I know you are eager to call this uncaused effect "God", but I see no reason at all to look any further than the universe itself. Now, the argument can be formulated in one of two ways (pick your poison, KeytarHero). Let's look at them both individually:EX MATERIA1. Everything that begins to exist ex materia has a cause.2. The universe began to exist ex materia.3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.In this argument, I would see no reason to dispute the first premise, but the second premise is obviously untrue. To make the second premise true, however, would be to render the conclusion invalid.EX NIHILO1. Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause.2. The universe began to exist ex nihilo.3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.Now the second premise is plausibly true, but the first premise has no evidential support. I didn't mean to imply that sight is the only tool for observing evidence worth noting, KeytarHero, excuse me if I was unclear. What I meant was that there is no evidence at all to support that premise, be it evidence attained through sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, logic, or anything in between.In fact, I'd bring up the quantum fluctuations that constantly occur in the vacuum of space, where photons literally pop into existence ex nihilo and uncaused, to flatly disprove the first premise but there's no need for even that. Firstly, even without considering the contradicting evidence, we can see there is no supporting evidence.Secondly, without considering those photons, what else is there to consider regarding the first premise? Nothing, except for the universe itself. So when the first premise reads "Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo" all it is really referring to by proponents of the argument is "The universe". There is nothing else that fits the description (aside from the contradicting evidence). It is essentially little more than asserting "Everything that begins to exist, and by that I mean the universe, has a cause; Therefore, the universe had a cause".Debunking the jump from cause to "God"First and foremost, you say that the attribute "dumb, but lucky" would not disprove your argument or the existence of God, but that is false considering you defined "God" as an "intelligent creator". We would be talking about something else entirely if we decided this cause was not intelligent, but merely lucky. So which are you trying to prove the existence of: an intelligent creator, or a dumb but lucky creator? Or are you just trying to prove the existence of some undefined mystical thing which ought to fall under the umbrella term of "God" since that's usually where all undefined mystical things go?Second and foremost, your false accusation of equivocation must have simply been foreshadowing or something because now you say you were secretly using another definition entirely of "infinite".You say this: "I will elucidate on what I mean by infinite. There are two definitions of infinite which [...]"I must say, though, I'm a little confused. I looked back and read over your previous two rounds again. Not once did you ever use the word "infinite" to describe God until your third round. No, that seems to be nothing more than a distraction from what you really said, and I quote verbatim: "The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, God is eternal. He has always existed and therefore has no cause."You didn't say "infinite". You said "He has always existed", pretty matter-of-factly. This was, of course, an attempt to exempt God from the first premise. By claiming God has always existed, he would logically never have began to exist, and therefore he wouldn't need a cause according to the first premise. However, in doing this, you contradicted your warrant for the second premise that nothing can always exist.That's all for now; over to you, KeytarHero!