The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.

Burdens: The burden of proof in this debate if would be to show that the premises of the Kalam Argument to be true, and to show how the progression and eventual conclusion of the argument is logically valid. The premises which the argument stand on come from this brief syllogism [1]: -Whatever begins to exist has a cause; -The universe began to exist; Therefore -The universe has a cause. The conclusion of this argument is as followed: If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; ergo, God exists. To summarize, the burden of proof is to prove the initial syllogism to be correct and show that the progression into the conclusion is rationally valid. Source: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org... Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause Causality, otherwise the relationship between cause and effect, stands as the principle that "everything that exists has a cause" [1] The principle of causality stands as a basis to logic, scientific observations and everyday rational deductions. The scientific method is the series of observations and experimentations in order for one to reach a speculative hypothesis and eventually develop of coherent or well proven theory. However, in order for this basis to even begin to stand, one must first take the basic assumption that whatever phenomena one is observing must have an explainable or at least comprehendable cause, one takes the assumption that even if the cause is yet to be known that said cause exists in the first place [2] [3]. If said cause did not exist, or said cause could not be explained, then the scientific method would be rendered null and void. Therefore, the assertion of this first premise is fully valid, as causality is the Sources: 1. . https://www.google.com...2. . http://www.ldolphin.org...3. . http://www.saasoft.com... Premise 2: The universe began to exist The most commonly accepted theory on the cosmic beginning of the universe was the Big Bang, and over astro-physical observation it remains as one of the most strongly prevailing cosmological model of the universe [1]. The model states that the universe evolved from an extremely dense and heated point (roughly the size of an atom) and began to expand from there [2] The very fact that the universe had an age alone suggests that it began to exist. Research from the European Space Agency shows the age of the universe to be roughly 11 billion years old, according to research [2] “It [the universe] must be at least 11 billion years old. It can be older, but not younger. ” The premise for the existence of a cosmic beginning is true in this case, since the universe has an age, it must have had a beginning, otherwise any research into age would be rendered meaningless. Source: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org.... /Big_Bang 2. . https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.space.com... Addendum: The Universe was caused This assertion is based on the prior premises that a) “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” and b) “the universe began to exist. ” Basic deductions will most likely conclude that the universe was caused. However, this cause cannot be the universe itself. The universe cannot will itself into existence as that would blatantly contradict the law of conservation of mass that “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed”. If the universe began to exist, it must have an age and is therefore restricted by dimensions of time. The fact that the universe can possibly expand must imply the existence of special restrictions within the universe, with both of these qualities in mind, the universe is also constricted by causality and conservation of mass. Meaning that the universe could not have occurred on its own, neither could it have brought about its own existence. If the universe was caused, then this cause must be something that is not restricted by the same laws as the universe itself, in short, it must be something beyond the universe, leading into the KCA’s conclusion. The nature of the “cause” As stated in the conclusion of the Kalam argument, the nature of the universe’s cause must be of the following: “If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful”. In short, this cause of the universe must be in nature “beyond” the attributes of the universe, it must transcend causality and time. As seen in the prior premise, the universe itself could not have fit this role, as the universe had a beginning, runs on finite energy and could not have willed itself into existence. The cause of the universe must be beyond time, otherwise said cause would require a cause on its own (this would lead into an unending cycle of “caused causes”, which cannot perpetuate endlessly). The universe itself has an age and a beginning, hence cannot fit this role. Furthermore, this cause must be without space or form, as that is quantity of the universe. This cause must, in short, transcend all prior assertions of causality. To do so would also require enormous, incomprehensible power. All of which are qualities that would accurately fit into the concept of God In Conclusion, the premises of the KCA fit well into the law of Causality, along with well encompassing the nature of the universe and proving it’s finite nature. Later deductions from the argument flow in a rationally valid progression, therefore, this proves the soudness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. That concludes my arguments for this round, onto you Con ;)