The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

That being said, I don't see exactly what argument I would need to propose. Rather, all I need to show is that the premises are unsupported and therefore unwarranted, at minimum. However I will also attempt a rebuttal and point out the overall flaw in the argument. 1. Whateve begins to exist has a causeMy opponent has stated that the claim is supported by human experience and intuition. However, this is, upon closer look, NOT to be the case. Firstly, what are "beginnings" that we observe? They are more accurately conversions of pre-existent matter and energy into different arrangements. They are simply parts of the whole which are in a constant state of flux. How can we point out exactly where it "begins"? On what point does a grain of sand collect enough to form a dune? Where does the beach end and the ocean begin? They're arbitrary points made for more quotidian uses. Even accepting they are"beginnings" is still problematic, since they are qualitatively different from the kinds that the KCA argues for. A chair "begins to exist", but does it begin to exist from nothing? No. In fact, my opponent has argued against that very thing being even possible. Because of this, we cannot therefore call these "beginning-from-something" as beginning in the sense that the argument requires- ie a creatio ex nihilo, and thus we do not have examples of anything beginning to exist. Further to point out the flaw of this argument is the fact that quantum fluctuation occur out of low-point field of energy (or vacuum- they're "nothing" in the physicist sense though not "nothing" in the philosophical definition of absolute non-being) without cause. Its "cause" if it could even be called that is entirely part of the nature of the quantum particles via Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty. In short, we have things beginning to exist uncaused (though not out of nothing). Then there's the informal fallacy of composition. Though my opponent would point out it's an INFORMAL fallacy and for example a wall made of redbricks would be red, the fact of the matter is that the reasoning achieved to lead TO the conclusion is fallacious. It may be the case in certain examples, but other examples such as Human cells are invisible to the naked eye. Humans are made up of human cells. Therefore, humans are invisible to the naked eye. point out that the reasoning behind the conclusion is fallacious and therefore the argument still stands. Things within the universe may have "cause" of existence but we cannot therefore extrapolate it to the universe at large. That brings us to the 2nd premise:2. The universe began to existTo support this argument my opponent refers to the argument against actual infinities, citing for example Hilbert Hotel as "proof" of the impossibility of actual infinities. The problem of course is that my opponent is effectively denying the very nature of infinity in the real world, and thus the nature of mathematics itself in the real world. As an aside, it's also worth noting that effectively his proof 1 and 2 are simply the same arguments, with the first proof being an assertion with the 2nd proof being its defense. With that: Hilbert's Hotel:Hilbert's Hotel paradox is, to put simply, not a paradox but simply highlighting the peculiar nature of actual infinity as well as making some flawed assumptions of infinity. In saying that "infinite number of patrons would fill infinite number of rooms" my opponent as effectively attempted to cap ends in a capless concept. Infinity is by definition without beginning or end. It entails conceptually certain strange facts, such as the fact that there are as many numbers in a set of all integers as there ae all ODD integers. How could this be, if one is effectively "half-an-infinity" and according to intuition should be a smaller number? My opponent would of course assert that this highlights the very paradoxical nature of infinity. But that wasn't what he was arguing, was he? He was not saying infinity was conceptually invalid which is what that argument would entail. What he's saying is that though this is perfectly fine in the realm of mathematics, it does not work in the actual world, which only highlights my pevious point in that effectively my opponent is making the claimof a dichotomy between the realm of mathematics and the real world. He is denying the very connection of mathematics with the real world- an absurd statement, clearly. My opponent is therefore stuck between two equally absurd conclusions: either actual infinity is conceptually invalid, in which case he denies works regarding it by the likes of Cantor for example as well as many other mathematical works which involves infinity (which funny enough provide no problem in either mathematics or physics calculation, I might add), or that he denies the link of the mathematical realm with the real world- another absurd conclusion. Current cosmology also points to the irrelevant nature of this. When physicists and cosmologists state the universe "began to exist" like in say the Hartle-Hawking model or the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin model (a favorite among Christian apologists such as William Lane Craig), they have a radically different definition of universe and time. I've defined universe in my initial post which my opponent accepted that the universe "universe does not simply mean whar arises from an expansion- ie spacetime, but essentially existence itself. A creation of existence means the creation of energy which is the basis of physical existence. " With that being said, the distinction comes to an important point here, in that universe in their definition is the particular arrangement of the energy into "spacetime" and not the all-encompassing classical definition of "all that exists" or "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: (Merriam Webster). The physicists posit time to be part of the spacetime- ie part of the energy/matter arrangement. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin model for example posits effectively that the universe and time "began"- but not from nothing. As we further go down the "history" of the conception of the universe, space and time are all converted to an Intial Energy Density from which a false vacuum arises which leads to quantum nucleation (as referred to Vilenkin's 1982 paper) that kicks off the expansion. In short, they posit a "time" (term used loosely here) in which energy existed without time, that gave rise TO time and space (which is their definition of universe). They do not, however, posit creation of energy and hence they do not posit a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. In short, in cosmology my opponent's entire argument for the 2nd premise is rendered irrelevant. What does this leave us? 1. We do not have support for the claim that whatever begins to exist has a cause, or of anything beginning to exist in any "creative" sense.2. We do not have evidence, nor reason to suppose that the universe ever began to exist (except as timespace which does NOT fit the definition I've provided in my initial post) 3. The universe does not and need not have a cause.