The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound

Closing ArgumentsThe Kalam Cosmological argument is not logically sound. The premise "whatever begins to exist, has a cause" is baseless, so Premise 1 fails. The only thing backing up Premise 2 is The Big Bang, but that only states that the universe as we know it came from the universe as we don't know it (The singularity). Since the universe in one form changing from another is not "beginning to exist" then Premise 2 fails to be logicaly sound. Since Premise 1 and 2 fail, then Premise 3 does not follow. Even if Premise 3 was sound (which is itsn't) you still canot logically jump from Premise 3 to "God must be the cause", therefore the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a non-sequitur.The Kalam Cosmological Argument is completely baseless and not logically sound.Also, my opponent has posted no source indicacting that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is only a 3 premise argument, he simply told us to search something (that's not posting a source).Since I posted 3 sources indicating that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is more than just 3 premises (none of which indicated that it was strictly Dr. Craig's version mind you, so my opponent's claim in that regard is baseless), then in the context of this debate it is more than a 3 premise argument. I personally haven't found any sources claiming that it is just a 3 premise argument, and my opponent has posted no sources claiming this is the case so he is either mistaken or dishonest it seems.Also, Con claiming that it's obvious that I couldn't refute the version he provided is baselss for two reasons. 1) I did refute his version, very easily2) His version isn't the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it's the Cosmological Argument. Basically my opponent's version is not backed up by any souces that he provided, so they do not apply. I urge the voters to take into account the blatent dishonesty/ ignorance involving my opponet and his version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, because every version I researched had more than 3 premises. As far as my burden goes, my opponent once more doesn't seem to understand the difference bettween something being logically sound and something being true. Something can be true and not logically sound, something can also be false and logically sound. Therefore, basing something being logically sound strictly on whether it can be proven true or not makes absolutely no sense. "If he cannot demonstrate any of the premises as false, then his resolution fails because the argument is sound"The above is clearly has no foundation reflecting the basic understandings of logic.You don't have to prove something is false to show that it is not logically sound. Something can be true by chance and still not be logically sound so I wish my opponent would get that one right.Anyway, regardless of whether or not the viewers disagree with me or not on this peticular issue, my opponent's arguments are clearly either all fallacious or simply incorrect. Regarding Premise 1My opponent seems to be implying that I have no foundation for claiming his arguments are fallacious, however that is baseless because he has not demonstrated how his arguments are not fallacious. Now while he is right that that arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Teleological argument attempt to show how a belief in God is likely and not a "bare assertion", this doesn't change the fact that it is (attempting and succeeding are two very different things).Now Con seems to believe that it's logical that the expansion of the singularity had a cause, I agree. However since the expansion took place from within the singularity, then the cause was most likely internal and not external. An internal cause for something happening to some pre-existing state, in no way shape or form equates to an external cause for something beginning to exist. Therefore, Premise 2 fails to show that "the universe began to exist" if it is based on The Big Bang. If one premise is baseless, the the whole argument fails to be logically sound."A car comes into existence once the parts are assembled into a car."False. A "car" is a label applied to a specific arrangement pre-existing things, there is no substance or force being added to existence when the car was created. According to my opponent, you can bring things into existence my rearranging things. This is of course absurd, so we can dismiss his statement above."Pro even admits that the metal must be arranged a certain way in order to be a car."Straw man. I admitted that the metal/ steel must be arranged in a certain way for it to be called a car. I never admitted that rearranging something = Bringing something new into existence (because it isn't, and my opponent is clearly being dishonest).Unless my opponent can name what new thing like a molecule, atom, chemical, force, energy ect. that was brought into existence when the car was made, then it's clear he has no scientific bases for claiming that rearranging things is someone brining new things into existence. It's outrages."Pro has given no evidence why anything at the sub-atomic level would not need a cause, when things at the macro level would."Relativity is a principle within the universe, it breaks down at the sub-atomic level. Since it's possible for principles applied to the macro-level to fall apart at the sub-atomic level, and cause/ effect is a principle of the macro-level, then there is no logical reason to claim everything must have a cause.Regarding Premise 2"I'm sure there are many hypotheses about the creation of the universe which do not involve intelligence, but there are also many that do."Exactly, so to claim of the KCA that the cause must be personal is not logically sound. If it's possible for M-Theory to correct, then the must aspect goes right out the window. Now my opponent is claiming that God of the Gaps is not a logical fallacy, which pretty much sums up how lost my opponent is in this debate. The god of the gaps was actually deemed a fallacy by Theists themselves a long time ago."Is a god of the gaps at the root of Intelligent Design (ID) and creation science? This informal logical fallacy occurs when a given mystery (or gap) that science has not solved is "explained" with reference to divine activity: God just made it work out, somehow, some theists might say." - http://www.icr.org...I got the above quote from a Creationist Website. Every Sophisticated Theist knows God of the Gaps is a fallacy, to deny this shows my opponent's lack of understanding of logic.Now lets be clear, The Big Bang states that the universe as we know it came from the singularity, it does not say that the singularity began to exist. If Premise 2 is only backed up by The Big Bang, then premise 2 is baseless. Any assertion which is baseless, is not logically sound.Regarding Premise 3Premise 1 and 2 are baseless, making Premise 3 baseless.Premise 4If Con wants to change the Kalam Cosmological Argument then he is being dishonest. My opponent just asserts that it is only a 3 premise argument without any sources, I have provided 3 sources showing that it is in fact at least a 4 premise argument. Sources and honesty > No sources and dishonestyConclusion:1) Substances in motion aren't new substances to popping into existence, so we have no direct observations of things scientifically beginnning to exist at the macro-level.2) We have indirect observations of virtual particles popping in and out of existence at the sub-atomic level, and principles of the macro-level don't necessarlity apply to the sub-atomic level.3) P1 of the KCA is baseless4) P2 is based on The Big Bang, but The Big Bang doesn't support P2, so it is baseless. 5) All research of the KCA indicates it includes more than 3 premises, I prvovided 3 sources to back up my claim, con has provided 0.6) "God must be the cause of the universe" does not follow from the first 3 premises, so it is a non-sequitur.7) The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound