God is not real.

I apologize for the delay in my response.Kalam Cosmological ArgumentI've responded to the Kalam argument before. I will not argue with your first syllogism. That the universe had to have had a cause is completely logical, and is supported by M-Theory. That cause can be explained by logic and science, rather than the supernatural. I am not claiming that the universe has an infinite past. You raise a highly interesting field of logic in your next syllogism. However, I think it would do well if you could explain it in terms and progressions slightly less confusing (your explanation was somewhat cryptic and difficult to understand). It feels as if you're just talking for the sake of saying something, but not really getting much of anywhere. I'm sure, of course, that this is not the case, and that I'm simply not focusing hard enough, but please, humor me.Logical AbsenceMy opponent has made his case, so I will now make one of my own, in my own words and my own logic. What I have to say is really quite brief, so I'll get right to it:P1: Science has a rational explanation for the source of the universe.P2: Science can explain, with supporting evidence, this rational explanation, without the necessity of magic.P3: The concept of the divine cannot explain the source of the universe without magic and illogical, non-supported claims.C: Science is more probably accurate.Modern science, while certainly not able to answer every question, has used the evidence and information available to try to explain the more difficult questions (rather than using the inexplicable to explain what is already known). The current school of thought, as you know, as to the origins of the universe is the Big Bang Theory. Contrary to popular belief resulting from religious propaganda, the Big Bang is not supposed to have been a random explosion, occurring in the presence of nothingness, that created the universe. The formation of a universe is, in fact, believed to be function of a larger body, called the 'multiverse,' which, hypothetically, is a large, potentially infinite collection of parallel universes, all existing within a matterless void. Such a thing is supposedly wrought with tiny 'bubbles,' called quantum microsingularities. Such singularities are everywhere, throughout everything. It has been hypothesized that the expansion of one to critical volume or mass, size, so to speak, would cause a hyperinflation, resulting in a massive release of energy, creating a universe. Of course, this is all hypothesis and conjecture, full of gaps and suppositions. However, it is no more illogical than the concept of a cosmic being that somehow inspired the universe to exist. I would think, if a scientific explanation of the origin of the universe can be devised, a supernatural one is simply illogical and unnecessary, especially given the lack of evidence supporting such a Creator (unless one takes the existence of the universe as said evidence).As my opponent has said, the burden of proof is indeed on him. I therefore will elect to say little else, because A) It's polite, B) I like letting the opponent say more than I do, and C) I don't actually have anything else to say, at the moment. It must, of course, be understood that in such matters, no real conclusion may be reached, since it is a soft subject, with no definite proof for either side. This makes the entire debate rest on which school of logic argues more favorably. It seems to me that the very good structure of my opponent's argument calls for a tie at the least, if not a win on his part. Well played sir, and I now leave the floor to you.Sources:The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinov