The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound

Closing ArgumentsThe Kalam Cosmological Argument is logically sound, as I have shown. It is both valid and its premises are true. I will not respond to Pro's first paragraph because he is simply rehashing old arguments and I wouldn't be adding anything new.I did post a source for the version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (which is different from the Cosmological Argument) that I, and other theologians like Norman Geisler, use. Unfortunately I didn't have the book in front of me and I didn't want to give any false information. However, I am almost positive Pro wouldn't have looked it up anyway, as is evidenced by the fact that he clearly doesn't know what makes an argument valid and/or sound, and I even provided a source for the clarification (which he obviously didn't read).Additionally, Pro claimed, "none of which indicated that it was strictly Dr. Craig's version mind you, so my opponent's claim in that regard is baseless..." In round 2 he very specifically indicated one of the arguments was Dr. William Lane Craig's reformulated version and then proceeded to give arguments to "refute" one or both of them. The fact of the matter is that he did not post which version he wanted to argue again, so I supplied the one I use. He did not refute it, he was trying to Strawman me by refuting a version of the KCA that I don't use. Premise 1 I have not been dishonest, and it is Pro who shows his own ignorace of what the Cosmological Argument and Kalam Cosmological Argument teaches. The Cosmological Argument has gone through many facelifts since it was first postulated, and not everyone arguing for the existence of God uses the exact same argument.Pro has consistently shown that his own arguments fall into the bare assertion category. If the singularity at the beginning was eternal, it would have no internal cause to expand and create the universe. It would need a catalyst. If it was static there would be no reason for it to react internally to create the universe.By this point I'm wondering if Pro is even reading what he's writing. Let me explain. He quoted me as saying, "Pro even admits that the metal must be arranged a certain way in order to be a car." Then he says, "Straw man. I admitted that the metal/ steel must be arranged in a certain way for it to be called a car." There's no difference. The metal/steel is not a car before it is arranged that way. Adding in "to be called" changes nothing. It can only be called a car because it is a car. The metal/steel is not a car until it is formed into a car. A car does not exist until it is created. Pro has consistently side-stepped my arguments. For two rounds now I asked him to back up his baseless assertions by asking about what caused the quantum wavefunctions. Two rounds now he has completely ignored this. Don't let him get away it, dear readers. Premise one stands.Premise 2Pro continues to Strawman me by arguing a form of the KCA I am not using. Again, readers, he did not supply which version he wanted to use, so I was forced to supply it. The KCA is not meant to prove there is a Creator, it is meant to show that the universe needs a cause. Combined with other arguments, like the Teleological Argument and the Moral Argument, does it show that the cause is God. Pro was being disingenuous by not being upfront about the argument at the beginning. Now, some have adapted the argument to try and show the existence of God from just the Cosmological Argument, like Dr. Craig, but I am not Dr. Craig and Pro did not show which version he wanted to argue. If he had, I may not have even taken take debate.All right, I do concede the point that God of the gaps is a logical fallacy. But I ask you, after reading the arguments, who is the more lost in this debate? Pro has not even responded to a good number of my arguments, completely ignoring them. He doesn't even understand the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. In fact, he hasn't read my sources and he consistently contradicts himself even in this same debate. I ask you, again, who has the least understanding of logic?Premise 3Pro has not shown that the first two premises are baseless, so again premise 3 stands.Premise 4I am not changing the KCA, I am arguing from the roots of it. Dr. William Lane Craig has changed the KCA (Pro even admitted it was a reformulated argument). Pro is not debating the KCA I was forced to give because of his own disingenuity.ConclusionThe KCA I was arguing from is as follows:1. Everything that begins has a cause.2. The universe had a beginning.3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. Pro did not supply which version of the KCA he wanted to argue against, so I was forced to give it. Pro didn't like my version so for the entire debate, he decided to Strawman me by arguing against a version of the KCA I wasn't using. I think it's quite clear that the KCA is a sound argument. It is valid (its conclusion logically follows from its premises) and its premises are true. The KCA is meant to show that the universe had a cause, which opens the door to other arguments like the Teleological Argument to show that the cause of the universe was an Intelligent Creator.Thank you again for reading.