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

Closing ArgumentsI have clearly shown in this debate how Con's assertions regarding the KCA are baseless and in fact, irrelevant and not legitimate objections to the argument. I will simply reinforce them and not add any new arguments this round, as Con would not have a chance to respond to them. Objection I:Again, I did not have to give a reason that God is timeless. That was not within the scope of this debate. I have reinforced this several times and Con continues to ignore it. Other arguments have been given to show that God is timeless. It is not my job here to defend them or even to give them (even though I gave an example in an earlier round) as the KCA is not concerned with the nature of God. The KCA is concerned with the origin of the universe, that it had a beginning and that all things that have a beginning (the universe included) has a cause of its existence. Con's entire objection is based on a red herring. The first premise does not beg the question because the first question says nothing of God. It only says everything that begins to exist has a cause. That's it. Con is simply incorrect that this premise begs the question. Con's objection is simply not legitimate. The KCA only speaks to the origin of the universe, not to the nature of God. Objection II:Con's objection here, likewise, is not legitimate. If I build a wall out of Lego bricks, you would think me crazy if I said the wall had a perfectly natural explanation of its existence, or that even though the individual Legos were all made by people, the wall has always existed. No, if we can see that all the individual parts of the universe had a beginning, then it is simply illogical to claim that the entire universe, made up of the individual parts, didn't. If all the parts of an object are contingent, the object itself is also contingent. Con's objection, again, is not legitimate. Objection III:There is a difference between Con's appeal to authority and the argument I gave. First, Con merely asserts that particles pop in and out of existence without cause, and all he can do is appeal to authority to show that it is so. But this authority is only one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen, when there are many others that are deterministic or indeterministic. Con has not shown why we should accept the Copenhagen interpretation over any others, and he has not answered my objection that we may not be aware of how the partciles have appeared, but that doesn't mean we will always be ignorant of their cause. Second, I gave evidence in Round 2 (my opening argument) as to how we know the universe is not eternal. I didn't give an appeal to authority, I gave scientific evidence to show that the universe is not eternal. Con also has not responded to this. As you see, Con's objection here is likewise not legitimate. Conclusion:I have clearly shown why none of Con's objections are legitimate. The KCA is a very strong argument for the existence of God and it has certainly withstood this challenge to its soundness. Thank you for reading this debate and thanks again to InVinoVeritas for taking the time to debate this with me.