The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence

InVinoVeritas still has not leveled a legitimate objection to the KCA.The KCA does not "beg the question." It is part of a series of arguments that form a cumulative case for the existence of God. For example, the KCA does not prove which God exists, only that the existence of God is probable. Other arguments are used to show which God exists, and there is good evidence to suggest it is the God of the Bible. But this is outside the scope of the KCA.Objection I:This, again, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.First, I don't have to defend Aquinas' argument here because we are debating the KCA, not whether God has eternally existed or if He has a cause. This is not within the scope of the KCA to determine. If InVinoVeritas wishes to debate that, he should challenge me (or another theist) to a debate on the matter.The KCA which states:1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2) The universe began to exist.3) Therefore, the universe had a cause.It is a valid argument, as the conclusion follows from its premises. It is also a sound argument.Other arguments are used to establish that God is eternally existent. The KCA does not because that is not its purpose. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is uncontroversial. I had a cause of my existence, as did Con, as do cars, trees, and buildings. We also know the universe began to exist. The premises both are true, making the conclusion true, and making the argument sound. Con has not disputed these. He merely looks for logical fallacies where none are present.Objection II:As I have shown, most fallacies are not always fallacies. This is even true of the fallacy of composition, as I have shown in my example of the brick wall.To add to my rebuttal, I'll quote Edward Feser again: "If A and B are of the same length, putting them side by side is going to give us a whole with a length different from those of A and B themselves. That just follows from the nature of length. If A and B are of the same color, putting them side by side is not going to give us a whole with a color different from those of A and B themselves. That just follows from the nature of color. If A and B are both contingent, does putting them together give us something that is necessary? It is hard to see how; indeed, anyone willing to concede that Lego blocks, tables, chairs, rocks, trees, and the like are individually contingent is surely going to concede that any arbitrary group of these things is no less contingent. And why should the inference to the contingency of such collections stop when we get to the universe as a whole? It seems a natural extension of the reasoning, and the burden of proof is surely on the critic of such an argument to show that the universe as a whole is somehow non-contingent, given that the parts, and collections of parts smaller than the universe as a whole, are contingent." [1]Considering that the universe is made up of many individual parts (e.g. planets, stars, humans, animals, etc.), and each part within the whole had a beginning of its existence, then it logically follows that the universe, which is made up of all these individual parts, also had a beginning.This objection is also not a legitimate objection to the KCA.Objection III:The irony here is that Con's third objection rests on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. His claim is that "a vast majority of scientists stand by the idea that atomic decay is spontaneous (and therefore uncaused)." The majority could be wrong. Con has not answered my response, that scientists can be wrong about this. What we believe now may be changed or adjusted in 50 years. That is the nature of science, to find answers. Something that may appear uncaused today may be known as to the cause in 50 years.This objection does not undermine the KCA.Conclusion:The KCA stands as a valid and sound argument. Con has not leveled one legitimate objection to the KCA and as such, its standing as a powerful argument for the existence of God remains unchallenged. [1] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com...;