The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

Contention #1"What the objection essentially is, is the law of excluded middle [1] - everything either begins to exist or it does not. This is not question begging, nor circular, but is a necessary truth.I hope this helps." I'm sorry but I still don't see how this is a valid objection. If you think that the claim "everything either begins to exist or it does not" is true, you have to accept one of the following:1) God began to exist2) God didn't begin to existI highly doubt you accept the first, so if you accept the second you are essentially claiming that god exists but didn't begin to exist. What you have failed to do is establish that the concept of existing without beginning to exist (NBE) is something more than just imaginary. To demonstrate (as best as I can) the fallacy you are committing, I will provide a similar claim.(original) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"(my claim) "Every bicycle with two wheels was assembled."Just like "everything that begins to exist", the idea that "every bicycle with two wheels" seems to be a category redundancy. Bicycles by defintion have two wheels, and "everything" that we know of that we can speak about that exists in any non-conceptual way, unlike shapes and numbers which I'll get to in contention #2, "began to exist".The first claim is the same as the second in another way, namely the category of bicycles that arent assembled is nonsense. A bicycle is made up of parts that need to be put together - that is to say the category of 'bicycles that are not assembled' as a concept exists, but to say that anything exists or could exist in such a category is silly.----------------------------------------------------------------Contention #2"It is not relevant what usage of terms I am using, or whether numbers and shapes physically exist or not. Another member of NBE is numbers. Or shapes. They come under the set 'not beginning to exist'. Their properties are a different matter all together." It is EXTREMELY relevant. Once again, this is STILL the equivocation fallacy. I don't know how many times I'd have to point it out, but you are simply not using the term exist in the same way when you talk about "things", which is basically matter/energy, and concepts like numbers and shapes. They don't exist in the same way, so you can't put them in the same category group as P1. It's like saying the sky is blue in the same way I'm blue when I'm sad. As far as I can tell, as you have yet to demonstrate otherwise, the category 'doesn't begin to exist' (NBE) is indistinguishable from 'doesn't exist at all'.----------------------------------------------------------------Contention #3"Let's get this clear. I give 2 reasons to believe that whatever begins to exist has a cause. These reasons are independent to the universe. They are indented to apply to everything. I am not citing our experience in the universe to claim that everything that begins to exist has a cause; instead I am referring to the logical absurdity of the claim that something can come from nothing." First of all, you gave three reasons in round 2 - one of which was "Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the premise." - so you completely lost me when you say you are not citing experience in the universe.Secondly, another of those reasons, "If something can come from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything comes into being from nothing." is a blatant argument from ignorance. Because you can't explain it, doesn't mean it's not necessarily true.I'll refer the readers back to contention 3 in my previous round and leave it up to them to decide if you've answered my very clear objection. ----------------------------------------------------------------Contention #4"We can say, 'this is more plausibly true than not', and so it is the job of the objector to prove that it actually is not more plausibly true than not." How could I even begin to discuss plausbility of a claim like "something cannot come from nothing"? Do we actually have an example of "nothing" to reference to determine something cannot come from it? The following video explaines PERFECTLY this exact discussion we're having:http://www.youtube.com...Also, it seems you've now downgraded your first premise from something necessarily true, to something most-likely true. You're essentially now arguing based on probability. Logic based on probability, as discussed in the video, isn't the same as normal syllogistic logic. EVEN IF your argument didn't have the fallacies in it I've continuously pointed out, the best you could ever hope to acheive with this type of reasoning is to show that God probably created the universe, but considering all the other holes in the argument I'd say even that is not the case.----------------------------------------------------------------Contention #5"In terms of simultaneous causation: if A is the cause, and B is the effect. If A were to disappear before the time at which B is produced, would B nevertheless come into being? Of course not..[snip]...So I have explained why actually all causation is simultaneous. Causation can occur even without a prior moment of time."The notion that "all causation is simultaneous" is nonsensical - for the readers/voters out there - imagine any cause/effect and if you were to plot them on a line in time would the cause be at the same point as the effect? Anything that immediately comes to mind involves the cause preceding the effect in some distance in time. If I scream right now I will startle my fiance sitting next to me, but my screaming involves vibrations in the air passing from my lungs through the room into her ears, etc... The effect of her being startled happens some time in the future from the effect. If I throw a ball it takes a second to hit the wall. If I turn on the light it takes time for those photons to travel bounce of all the surfaces in the room and fill it up with light. The effect is always some point in the future from the cause. This is causation 101.----------------------------------------------------------------Contention #6"I explained in Contention 7 why Pro is not right here. Again, using what Pro asserte, for all we know, causation is different outside of the universe compared to inside of the universe. I guess you could say that Pro is committing the fallacy of composition!"Once again, I'm sorry to keep having to say this, but this is nonsense. The notion of "outside of the universe" is as vague and nonsensical as "before time" - they are both concepts we cannot talk about because we can't even begin to understand if the concepts make any sense, and as far as we know they do not. I again put myself in the good keeping of the readers/voters here in deciding if those statements are meaningful in any way.----------------------------------------------------------------ConclusionI'll leave the readers with this as a final thought:"Although some other variation of the Kalām argument or Cosmological argument may be internally consistent even if all the terms given are agreed upon by all parties concerned, the argument actually makes no effort to demonstrate anything tangible in nature regarding the manifestation of a God. An example analogous to the Kalām argument would be a geometry proof on some type of polygon. Even though the entire table of proofs is totally internally consistent, it does not demonstrate that the actual polygon exists in nature. An exhaustive effort to prove all the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees says nothing about whether or not triangles exist. Even if you accept Kalām, it does not distinguish between a timeless multiverse, a timeless deity, or any other timeless process that might give rise to a universe." (1)----------------------------------------------------------------Sources(1) http://wiki.ironchariots.org...;