The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound

An argument can be two things: valid and/or sound. In order for an argument (e. g. the Kalam Cosmological Argument) to be valid, its conclusion must follow logically from its premises. It does, therefore the Kalam Cosmological Argument is valid. In order for it to be sound, not only must it be valid (which it is) but its premises must also be true. In order for the resolution to be confirmed, Pro must show why at least one of its premises are untrue. [1]Also, I did not watch the video as 1, Pro didn't reference it in his argument and two, my debate is with Pro, not with a guy on YouTube. Premise 1Pro claims that this is a baseless assertion, but it is not. Even if his argument held water, we would still have an example of something that came into existence that has a cause: the universe. Arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument are postulated to logically argue that the cause of the universe was, in fact, an Intelligent Creator. So stating that Premise 1 is untrue simply because we don't observe anything being created from nothing in nature is misguided. We have reason to suppose something could create the universe from nothing, and logical arguments such as the one we're debating are used to show why belief in an Intelligent Creator is reasonable. Now, we actually did begin to exist. There is a principle of causality in science that every effect has a cause. Pro and I were once not a sperm and an egg, but we were once a zygote. We began to exist as new, unique, living humans once the cause of the sperm and egg joining happened, the effect being a new human entity. It is also not correct to look at a hunk of metal and call it a car. It could be made into something else. It's not until a car is actually constructed that it may correctly be called a car. Pro and I began to exist; the effect of our existence was contingent upon the cause, our parents procreating and our father's sperm merging with our mother's egg. We began to exist, and we have a cause of our existence. Regarding his argument for the falseness of Premise 1, his argument is fundamentally flawed. Pro seems to think that scientists love being in the dark about why things happen. It is the fundamental function of science to find answers to questions, to find why things happen. Pro even admits that these "virtual particle fluctuations" may not even be uncaused, so it seems that he has refuted his own argument. He is arguing from ignorance, that they seem to be uncaused so they are because we have no other explanation. Scientists would not rest at these particles seeming to be uncaused, they would find a cause for these things to happen. Additionally, even if you believed these particles pop in and out of existence from nothing, then one, that is only true if you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is only one of many and two, even if you accept Copenhagen, you still have to acknowledge that these 'uncaused' quantum fluctuations require a wavefunction to describe the state of the system prior to measurement. The problem with quantum mechanics is that it equivocates when it describes nothing. [2] The "nothing" of quantum mechanics is a "sea of transient particles. " This is avoiding the question by trying to claim that "nothing" is not actually "nothing. "The reality is you cannot dismiss the Kalam Cosmological Argument with quantum mechanics. Consider this:1. It is claimed that the universe 'came into being' as the result of a quantum fluctuation2. Quantum fluctuations necessitate a wavefunction. Without a wavefunction, there are no quantum fluctuations3. A wavefunction is a description of Something, not Nothing. Nothing cannot be described; otherwise, it would not be Nothing4. Therefore, if you assert 1, the question merely becomes: what caused the 'Something' which was described by the wavefunction of the universe at its absolute beginning? So as we see, Pro equivocates by appealing to quantum mechanics to show that something can come from nothing, which contradicts the scientific principle of causality, that every effect has a cause. Premise 2It is not logical to suppose that a singularity existed before the universe that caused the big bang without an Intelligent Cause. If a singularity existed eternally it would need a catalyst to build up energy and expand into our universe. Also, no know natural laws could account for this violent eruption out of eternal quietude. An eternally quiet universe is physically impossible, since it would have to exist at absolute zero, which is impossible. Matter at the beginning was anything but cold, being collapsed into a fireball with temperatures in excess of billions of degrees Kelvin. In a lump of matter frozen to absolute zero, no first even could occur. Finally, positing eternal primordial stuff does nothing to account for the incredible order that follows the moment of the big bang. Only an intelligent Creator can account for this. [3]Premise 3Pro keeps saying that the premises are "unsound" but a premise cannot be valid or invalid, sound or unsound. A premise can only be true or false. The truth or falsity of the premises shows whether the argument as a whole is valid and/or sound. Pro has given no reason to reject the first two premises and as such, this premise stands. Premise 4Now, as you will note from my first round, there is no fourth premise. Only two premises and a conclusion. Here Pro is actually attacking a strawman of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The Kalam Cosmological Argument postulates that universe had a cause, it doesn't necessarily prove that this cause is an Intelligent Creator (that's why to be most effective, it must be combined with another argument such as the Teleological Argument or the Moral Argument to prove the First Cause was an Intelligent Creator). In my opening argument I showed what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is. This argument came from Islamic philosophers and it's possible they originally used something similar to the fourth premise, but the fourth premise is not necessary or even actually implied. Pro has not argued against the Kalam Cosmological Argument I laid out in the first round, which is the argument that is the basic element of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Pro was not specific on the form of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has claimed was unsound so I was forced to explain what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is. He has not shown how it is unsound. The argument shows that since the universe had a beginning (which Pro has not disproven), and everything that has a beginning has a cause, the universe had a cause. ConclusionPro has not shown that any of the premises are untrue and as such, the soundness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been upheld. [1] . http://www.preservearticles.com...;[2] . http://www.samharris.org...;[3] Geisler, Norman L. , The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, pp. 399-400