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

CLOSING STATEMENTS:Objection I: The opponent does not any valid reason that God is timeless and is the exception to the cause-effect rule that the KCA establishes for itself. He states that God's timelessness can be proven by other arguments, but he would rather not argue them because he believes it is "not within the scope of the KCA." However, the first premise begs the question by presupposing that God is the only exception to causality, and because the opponent refused to defend it, he is expecting me and the readers to accept his "ipse-dixitism." Now, since this is the final (closing) round, any defense that the opponent brings up for God being an exception to causality would be unjust, since it would have to go unrefuted. Hence, the first objection stands on the ground that there is no logical reason why God can be accepted as the sole exception of the rule of causality. And the embedded argument still exposes the question-begging flaw of the KCA's premise: (1) "Everything has a cause, expect God."(2) "The universe is not God."(3) "The universe, therefore, has a cause." Objection II: Here is a quote from Bertrand Russell on this matter [1]: "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all... I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother--that's a different logical sphere."The traits of the universe, holistically, are unknown to us, and we cannot discover its properties through the properties of certain things within it. Firstly, things within the universe do not necessarily have traits that match those of their parts:e.g., (1) Atoms are clear and colorless(2) Cats are made of atoms.(3) *Cats are clear and colorless. Secondly, we are not discussing about the composition of things within the universe; we are talking about the composition of the universe as a whole. The universe is not a subcategory of "everything" from the first premise, since it encompasses "everything." This, too, cannot be overlooked. Objection III:Indeed, this objection is founded on a modern scientific theory that is accepted by most of the scientific community. My opponent finds irony in my objection, but I find true irony in the fact that the opponent would criticize an accept of my argument that forms the basis of his. The KCA depends on the idea that the scientific community's theory of the Big Bang (a beginning of a universe, rather than an infinite universe) is sound. In the same way that acceptance of evidence by the scientific community leads to the approval of the Big Bang theory, the basis of quantum mechanics (and its proof that cause-effect is not necessary) is approved through extensive evidence and, therefore, the approval of the scientific community. The opponent states that science can easily disprove quantum mechanics in the future. But in the same way, science can disprove the finiteness of the universe (and the Big Bang)--or even the existence of God. ---My opponent's refutations do not stand, and my objections have been affirmed. In conclusion, the KCA argument is fallacious and is, therefore, not logically sound. It cannot be used to prove the existence of God. Vote Con. Thank you. [1] Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists, by Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins