The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is valid. The universe has a cause follows from the premises everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. If Pro wanted to argue a different version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, he should have posted which version he was arguing against during the first round. I am not William Lane Craig, and I don't use his version. If he had posted one of the versions he's been arguing against I likely would not have taken this debate. (By the way, for the source this version of the KCM is used in the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, composed by Norman Geisler). It's obvious Pro can't argue against the version I supplied so he's using another version which he sees as easier to argue againt. So he's created a Strawman argument. Since he did not supply a version of the KCM he wanted to use, I was forced to give the one that I (and other Chrisitan apologists) use. Don't let him get away with this.There's no "perhaps" about this. Pro may not understand the difference between a valid and sound argument. His resolution is "The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound." In order for the argument to be sound, it must be valid (i.e. the conclusion must follow logically from the premises, which it does), and those premises must be true. If he cannot demonstrate any of the premises as false, then his resolution fails because the argument is sound. Premise 1 Pro has, for the most part, side-stepped my arguments by trying to claim fallacies where there are none and completely ignoring some of my arguments. I'll try again.When I said the universe is something that came into existence that has a cause, it is not a bare assertion fallacy (Pro thinks so because he argues from his biases). Arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological argument attempt to show how a belief in God is likely and not a "bare assertion."I could also point out his appeal to the "singularity" that was there before the Big Bang is also a bare assertion fallacy.I never said the singularity came out of nothing, just that if there was a singularity that existed befor ethe Big Bang, it would have had no reason to build up energy and explode to create our universe without an outside force acting upon it, which could have also been God.Pro makes the assertion that at the sub-atomic level effects do not need a cause but he has not shown why this is possible. This is a case of special pleading. I would ask Pro to prove that events at the sub-atomic level do not need a cause.A car comes into existence once the parts are assembled into a car. A hunk of metal cannot be driven like a car. It's not until the metal and other parts are assembled that it can actually act like a car.Pro even admits that the metal must be arranged a certain way in order to be a car. A car comes into existence once its parts are assembled.It may have been made with preexisting elements, but the essence of what it is has come into existence. Just like with a human once the sperm and ovum merge a brand new human has come into existence, with the inherent capacity to develop all the traits that humans have. I did not exist before the sperm and egg merged to create me.I was not making a strawman fallacy regarding Pro, just showing that his statement was ridiculous, that effects don't need a cause. While something may appear to be uncaused now (such as things at the sub-atomic level), that doesn't mean that they don't have a cause. And scientists will eventually find out why these things happen. Pro even admitted that his arguments don't mean there isn't a cause, which would indicate that he may be wrong and the KCM correct that everything that has a beginning has a cause.Pro has given no evidence why anything at the sub-atomic level would not need a cause, when things at the macro level would.In fact, he completely ignored my argument against his implications in my last argument, so I'll try this again. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, that subatomic particles can pop into existence uncaused despite the fact that this is only one highly debated interpretation of quantum mechanics. Even granting this highly contested idea, it does nothing to solve the pertinent problem: can anything pop out of existence uncaused out of nothing. Any physicist will tell you that particles pop into existence because the wavefunction of the system you're studying is in a superposition of multiple states, some containing particles and some not containing particles. The question for you then, is: what caused this wavefunction? You cannot appeal to particles popping into existence without appealing to a quantum wavefunction. Quantum wavefunctions always describe Something. It is philosophically impossible that they describe Nothing because Nothing cannot be described; if it could, it would not be Nothing. So the argument is: 1. Even if we grant that particles pop into existence uncaused through a quantum fluctuation, this would require the existence of a quantum wavefunction. Without a wavefunction, you have no quantum fluctuations 2. Wavefunctions describe Something 3. Nothing, by defnition, cannot be described 4. So what caused this quantum wavefunction?If Pro again refuses to answer this, readers, then I think it's clear who has the stronger arguments.Premise 2 Pro has created his own bare assertion fallacy by appealing to a singularity before the creation of the Big Bang. I'm sure there are many hypotheses about the creation of the universe which do not involve intelligence, but there are also many that do. Your singularity is no more believable than an Intelligent Creator, and you are making an argument from intelligence to claim that there's "no proof for God so God must not exist." That's two fallacies in one.Additionally, God of the gaps is not a logical fallacy. [1] It was a term coined by a Theologian to not just insert "God did it" willy-nilly into one's arguments. If there are no known natural laws that account for something, it's possible the only explanation is God, but it's also possible science will day have an answer to them. But as I've shown, the "singularity" before the universe actually contradicts natural law. It would have needed a catalyst to build up energy and expand into the universe. If it was eternally existing it would not have a catalyst unless acted upon by an outside force.The premises can be shown as true. Everything that has a beginning has a cause, and the universe had a beginning. We know the universe is not eternal because it is expanding. So it had a beginning. We also know that everything that has a beginning has a cause because of the scientific principle of causality.Premise 4I have already shown why Pro is being disingenuous by arguing a different form of the KCM than I am. If Pro had a specific version in mind, he should have posted it from the get-go. So I was forced to use the version I and other theologians use, one that he apparently can't argue against so he is sticking to his guns to argue a version he sees as weaker. I am not William Lane Craig, and I don't use his version of the KCM. Conclusion My arguments were not fallacious (and even if they were, Pro has arguably made as many fallacies as I allegedly have). But the Kalam Cosmological Argument stands. It is valid, because its arguments follow logically from its premises, and it is sound because it is valid and the premises are all true. In fact, the premises are all in line with scientific principle. Pro is not only arguing against the Kalam Cosmological Argument but against scientific principle itself. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;