The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Logically Sound

The problem with my opponent's objection to my first paragraph, is no where is God mentioned in one of the premises. There are different versions of the Kalam (which I recently just discovered), some infer a cause and a God, some infer just a cause, this one we are debating about just infers a cause. I'm also very surprised and my opponent's attempts to refute my objections, the arguments came across more like sophisticated dodging. Anyway, in this round, I'm going to defend the contention that all of my refutations still stand and my opponent did not adequately tear them down.P1: Fallacy of Composition My opponent is saying that because the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't specifically say "Because all of the parts of the universe have a cause for their beginning, the universe as a whole requires a cause for its beginning", then the Kalam Cosmological Argument has found an escape route as far as this fallacy is concerned. The problem is, I already knew this would be the rebuttal, which is why I included my 5 premised argument in the first round (my opponent completely ignored this, of course).Re-Hashed 5 Premised Argument P1: All examples of causes involve parts within the universe. P2: Our sense of cause and effect, is 100% based on parts within the universe. P3: Thefallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of thewhole from the fact that it is true of some, or every part of the whole. P4: Claiming the universe must have had a cause is committing thefallacy of composition. P5: If claiming that the universe must have had a cause may be fallacious, then it’s not logical to do so.The point of the above argument, is to illustrate that our sense of cause and effect comes 100% from the parts within the universe. Therefore, if someone is going to say the universe had a cause it must be based on the principle of cause and effect, since the principle of cause and effect is 100% based on the parts of the universe then the exact wording of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is irrelevant.The Kalam could be revised as:P1: Every part of the universe that has a beginning, has a cause P2: The universe as a whole, began to existP3: The universe has a causeThis is clearly a Fallacy of Composition. One may ask how I'm justified and inferring "every part of the universe" instead of "everything", the answer is simple, we as humans are not omniscient. Therefore, we have no knowledge on "everything" only the parts of the universe.Until a theist can convince me that the principle of cause and effect isn't 100% based on parts within the universe, then the only logical option is to call out the Kalam Cosmological Argument on this potential fallacy regardless of it's deceiving wording. P1: The Equivocation FallacyAs I was reading my opponent's objection and was disappointed that he never refuted this properly, and just seemed to dodge it. Basically, my opponent's objection is that "begins to exist" means the same thing regardless of whether it's creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia. Therefore, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has found an escape route according to my opponent. Unfortunately, this is a weak argument and I will explain why:Anybody can define something loosely and say that "it all means the same thing", however most people with an ounce of sense should not be so easily fooled. There is a vast, and I mean, vast difference between:1) Pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged 2) Something popping into existence that came from no pre-existing thingsAnybody making the claim that "begin to exist" means the same thing all the way around, immediately is either showing signs of intellectual dishonesty or plain philosophical ignorance. Also my opponent makes the claim that there is a difference between ex nihilo caused, and uncaused. However, I'm afraid that you can't get anything from absolutely nothing no matter how you look at it. The only way to wiggle out of this would be to claim that God is omniscient, however as I stated, this is assuming a God before the cause is proved. The Kalam is trying to argue for a cause and then a God, therefore you can't use the conclusion that God exists as a defense of one of the premises (this would be a clear case of circular reasoning and begging the question). My objection also takes care of the "ex deo" option my opponent inferred, because once more, God's existence comes after the cause is proved, you can't use God to prove the cause.P1: Uncaused effectsMy opponent claims that it's a baseless assertion that radioactive decay is spontaneous, even though it's a scientific fact. The source I provided even defined it as spontaneous, and every other source regarding radioactive decay I researched did too. My opponent is either ignorant to radioactive decay, or once more, displaying signs of intellectual dishonesty.Radioactive decay being spontaneous is fact"The emission is spontaneous, in that the atom decays without any physical interaction with another particle from outside the atom." [1]"Generally, there are four main concepts that students struggle with when thinking about radioactive decay: the spontaneity (or randomness) of radioactive decay, the reason isotopes are important, the concept of half-life, and knowing which system is appropriate" [2] "Radioactive decay is a natural process. An atom of a radioactive isotope will spo­ntaneously decay into another element through one of three common processes..." [3]So basically, to claim that these decays being spontaneous is a "bare assertion" would be to go against the whole scientific understanding of radioactive decay. The only bare assertion was claiming that if radioactive decay is random, then radiometric dating would be falsified, my opponent gave no reasoning for this. Therefore, he is the only one that seems to be asserting things without basis in this debate.As far as Quantum Mechanics being uncaused, my opponent claims that it's an argument from ignorance. Basically, just because I don't know how they could be caused doesn't mean that they aren't. However, my opponent seems to fail to realize that if this is true, then he is arguing from ignorance as well. Just because he doesn't know how something could be uncaused, doesn't mean it isn't. Since we know that principles at the macroscopic level break down at the sub-atomic level (General Relativity for example), then it's plausible for the principle of "cause and effect" to break down at the sub-atomic level as well. P2: Philosophical ArgumentMy opponent is basically doing what I said he would have to do (cheat) to make the Kalam Cosmological Argument work, he is inferring an omnipotent God to make this "cause" possible without having to suffer the fate of infinite regress. The problem, is the KLA is supposed to prove the cause then God. My opponent however, is trying to use God to defend one of the premises for a cause. This of course, is begging the question. My whole point originally was that if this external "cause" being timeless can get wiggle out of the infinite regress, then so can the singularity itself. Since as know (as far as The Big Bng is concerned) that the singularity existed, but do not know if this external cause existed, then in the name of Occam's Razor it's logical to dismiss the unneeded assumption.P2: The Big BangThe problem is, did the universe begin ex mateira or ex nihilo? My opponent is simply using the fallacious "glossing over" technique to deny the clear equivocation fallacy.Conclusion:1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument is clearly fallacious anyway you look at, it and my Pro didn't do very convincing job of proving otherwise. 2) If an argument is clearly fallacious everyway you look, it cannot be logically sound at the same time.The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://serc.carleton.edu...[3] http://science.howstuffworks.com...