This gay bathhouse would state: The Kalam Cosmological argument is sound

To be frank, I was really irritated to go through the entire thing not because of your sh*t and your b*tch but because of your inability to frame an argument. In fact the argument is already there on the internet and you just have to defend it but it's OK if you are new to this and I'll take the challenge anyway. //Premise 1: Everyting that began to exist had a cause// This premise talks about the past and since we are dealing with the origin of the Universe which took place in the past., the first premise can still be used to arrive at the desired conclusion but the correct and the formal statement for the first premise is "Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence." or "Everything that begins to exist has a cause". Here you make the premise time independent thus making it more flexible to use it in your argument. Refutation to the First Premise: The first premise cannot be considered as an absolutely true statement. The principle of causality is applicable within the Universe, you have no justification for the assertion that it is applicable to the Universe itself. Now consider our Universe to be a part of some another mUniverse whose laws are different and the ' cause and effect ' principle is not applicable there, so our Universe came into existence just because it is part of that mUniverse without any actual cause as required by mUniverse. //Premise 2: The Universe had a cause.// This is not the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument, but rather the first part of the conclusion which you have stated as the third premise. I see no difference between you second and your third premise The formal and the correct second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, " The Universe had a beginning". As I see that your explanation in which you are trying to defend the second premise is based on the formal one and not the one which you have put here, I'll try to refute the formal one. Refutation to the Second Premise: //An infinite series of events is illogical // How do you justify this? The Universe had a beginning at Big Bang and has General Relativity predicted time itself started at Big Bang. Given that the big bang actually happened, it only implies that our Universe existed for a finite amount of time and not that it had a beginning. Since General Relativity does not work in Planck's time (10 ^ -43 s) , the space time collapses at that point so we cannot be certain if the Universe actually had a beginning since we do not have any theory right now to find out what happened within the Planck's scale and this could be achieved once we are able to unify Relativity and Quantum theory to form quantum gravity on which scientists are working hard for many years. Since time is irrelevant within the singularity, it is very much possible that the Universe existed forever within the singularity before 13.7 billion years ago. Dr. William Lane Craig, the most famous defendant of the argument, puts forth another argument to depend the second premise which goes like this- P1). An actual infinite cannot exist. P2).An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. C). Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. Since he is aware that Einstein's Relativity and time dilation is incompatible with the second premise, he has denounced the theory of Relativity and has become an anti-Einsteinian. Any science enthusiast will be knowing how important Relativity is and its contribution in the exploring of our Universe in the past hundred years. //Premise 3: The universe had a cause.// This is actually the first conclusion which is supposed to be derived from the first two premises and I'll consider it as a statement because it is yet to serve as a premise until we are not dealing with the second conclusion which you have put forth as the fourth premise here. Refutation to the third statement: The closest nothingness known to human beings is the empty space which comprises of quantum vacuum which has fluctuation of quantum energies. So we cannot be sure if there is any absolute nothingness to assert that the Universe has a cause and began to exist from the state of being absolutely nothing. Nevertheless this statement is still not valid if you are able to defend the first two premises. //Premise 4: That causes is god Premise 3c.4L>0: God must exist to be the cause Premise -1^2: God exists.// I fail to see the meaning of the symbols "3c.4L>0" and " -1^2:". This is actually the second conclusion which is suppose to be derived form the first two premises and the first conclusion. This conclusion in itself provides no justification how one can logically move from "cause" to "god" nor it can be derived from the previous three statements like the first conclusion is derived from the first two premises. But you have tried to justify it later and I'll counter argue on that. I'll consider this as the fourth statement. Refutation to the fourth statement: So from my refutation to the second premise, we are not sure if the Universe actually had a beginning and it could be simply existing because of the assumed mUniverse which is timeless thus requiring no beginning from our perspective or the Universe could have existed forever within the singularity which is also timeless. if you say that it had beginning and god is the cause then you are yet to provide reasons why god cannot have a beginning. So both stand on equal ground, and if you still insist that god existed forever then you are committing 'Special pleading fallacy' by ignoring my position which has equal possibility. But by applying 'Occam's Razor' (which says that while selecting a hypothesis one with fewest assumptions should be selected) I can safely assume or consider it as the most probable scenario that our Universe existed forever because we have evidence for the existence of our Universe but not for the existence of god. //D: God is real. We know these premises are true if we look within ourselves and outside our selves.// This is irrelevant to the argument. I have agreed to debate only on the Kalam Cosmological Argument and not on how I feel when I look inside or outside of my self.