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

Thank you, KeytarHero. You’ve been a great opponent in a great debate! With only one round left, let’s wrap it up…Debunking the argumentI’m afraid that by now, there are so many holes in the argument I don’t know where to begin, but I’ll try to keep this as organized as possible. Below is the new argument my opponent is trying to defend:1) 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.Regarding the first premise, my opponent says this: “Dakota states that there is no evidential support for premise one, that everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause. This may or may not be true. However, to state that it is absolutely not true because there is no evidence for it is to make an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.”Reread my argument; I am very careful with my words. I never said it isn’t true; the most I said is there’s no reason to believe it’s true. And if there’s no reason to believe the first premise is true, then there’s no reason to believe the conclusion is true.Of course, my opponent continues to say that we are justified in believing the first premise is true. He says this: “I don't agree that we're not justified to believe that things that begin to exist ex nihilo have a cause. The universe didn't just pop into existence.”That is the warrant for the first premise: “The universe didn’t just pop into existence.” Essentially, this is defending the premise with the premise.He also says: “It would be impossible for me to give an example of things that come into existence ex nihilo that need a cause because we only really have one example, the universe.”This unequivocally confirms my previous statement that “Everything that begins to exist ex nihilo” is referring to and only to “The universe”. That means the entire argument is really just saying “The universe had a cause; therefore, the universe had a cause.Then he says: “And if you accept that there was a singularity at the beginning of time that exploded into the universe, then you would have to show how that singularity was able to explode into the universe we have today.”Firstly, the steps in which our universe took to become what it is today is pretty well mapped out by now (although there will inevitably be some gaps in knowledge due to the fact it all happened BILLIONS of years ago). Secondly, I find this funny because you insist that we must show every detail of a naturalistic explanation of the universe for you to believe it, when you know you can’t show how God was able to create the universe either. In the words of William Lane Craig, “In order to understand an explanation is the best, you don’t need an explanation of the explanation.”While reading your final argument, KeytarHero, I started to get the feeling you don’t even believe in the Big Bang theory. “On top of that, explosions don't create order,” you say, “they cause chaos,” and you compare the Big Bang to a stick of dynamite.The Big Bang was not an explosion; it was merely an expansion of space-time, which I’d say was neither chaos nor order; it was just the expansion of the smallest particles of space (which later formed atoms, then gas, then stars, then heavier elements, then rock, then planets). Applying a concept such as “order” and saying “it’s so orderly; it must have been designed” is fallacious for several reasons…(1) The concept of order essentially has no existence but in the minds of humans. The universe is neither chaotic nor orderly; it just is.(2) Natural phenomena create things which look orderly to human beings all the time, due to our brains’ evolutionary tendency to seek patterns (a strange formation of rocks on the beach, an imagined face in the clouds, an eyeball-eating parasite with all its little working parts, etc).(3) An adjective such as “orderly” is subjective. You can base your subjective opinions on objective facts, but surely you’re not going to assert objective facts based on your subjective opinions… are you?Debunking the jump from cause to “God”First and foremost… I understand my opponent’s unwillingness to prove God is the God of the Bible as that would mean providing an entirely new argument, one that we simply don’t have time for. Let this point be irrelevant for the purposes of deciding who had the better arguments.Second and foremost… KeytarHero addresses this point by saying: “God exists outside of the universe, so He is not bound by its natural laws. We, as temporal beings, only exist in one moment in time. We cannot exist in more than one moment in time. However, God exists in the future, as much as in the present, as much as in the past.”Even if God could simultaneously be present in every moment of time, the number of those moments cannot be infinite. So, before the Big Bang, was there time? (Note that this is a question only theologians must answer. As an atheist, I don’t have to make up another dimension that preceded the Big Bang for God to have resided. In other words, there was no “before the Big Bang”. But to say God was the cause of the universe, there must have been.)(A) Yes.(B) No.If (A) is true, then we run into the same problem that an infinite number of moments cannot exist. Sure, I’ll grant that God can exist in every moment of time, but every moment of time can’t actually be infinite!If (B) is true, then instead of saying “God always existed,” you’re saying “God never existed,” that before the Big Bang, there was no time which God existed.Thank you, KeytarHero, for debating with me and the audience for taking the time to read. Please read both of our arguments carefully and vote accordingly.