Kalam Cosmological Argument, take 2

First, I would like to apologize for the forfeit in the previous round. Because of recent storms in my area and other debates, I completely missed the previous round. Voters, I ask that you give my opponent the conduct point; however, I have not forfeited the debate.1) Whatever began to exist has a cause for its existence.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.Divine AttributesThe KCA is inherently an argument for God's existence. Therefore, I believe this is valid. Why should I believe that this cause is God? My opponent has not answered this question. Premise 1 I cited quantum fluctuations as an example against premise 1. My opponent missed the point entirely. Of course they are not "nothing" (as my opponent said they were); rather, I argued that they pop into existence completely randomly and have no cause (or creator) for its existence. Paul Davis notes: In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)Stephen Hawkings notes: There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129) [2] So, my opponent doesn't even answer the question at hand. Premise 2Once again, my opponent completely misses the point. I argued that there is no such thing as "nothing". Review the quote from the last round: "In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris 1990: 25) " The B theory of Time Once more, my opponent still misses the point for the same reasons listed above. However, he does ask for evidence for the B-theory of time which I will present in this round. In his debate with Mr.Infidel, Thrasymachus points out: Some further support for B-theory. What is happening on Pluto when I snap my fingers? Thanks to special relativity, the answer depends on your frame of reference with respect to me. B-theorists can easily accommodate this, but A theorists seem obliged to say there is a ‘correct’ answer as only a given point of time exists across the universe at any instant, and so demand a privileged frame of reference. Yet this requires various contrivances unnecessary on a B-theory view.[3] Conclusion Throughout my opponent's "rebuttals", my opponent completely missed the point and failed to answer any of my questions. I argue that the KCA does not prove that God exists nor does it have a cause. Sources 1. Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Quoted http://www.infidels.org...;2. Hawking, Steven. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam. Quotedi n the URL above.[3] http://www.debate.org...;