The KCA is ridiculous.

Thank you for your response.1. In my previous round, I said that the cause of the universe must be unimaginable powerful, personal, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As we will clearly see now, my opponent has not successfully refuted this point.PersonalIn answering the proposition that the cause of the universe must be personal, Pro said that this is an assertion that is very poorly explained, and that there are no definitions of "personal" or what temporal effect means. I will explain what this means, since Pro apparently doesn't understand it. What is meant by "personal" is basically a being or agent with a mind, a being that can freely choose what to do. What is meant by "temporal effect" is something that is produced by an cause pertaining to time.Pro moved on to say: "something non personal can give rise to something temporal! Would you argue that when an apple falls and give temporary motion to the ground it hits (in the form of a vibration) that that drop was personal?"But the apple didn't itself choose to do this. Again, as William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." It must be noted that there are two types of causes. The first is event causation, which is a spontaneous result of previous impersonal factors. The second is agent causation, which is an agent who simply decides. An event cause (i.e. a non-personal entity) cannot account for the beginning of the universe because with any event we must ask: What prior event caused that current event, and what event caused that prior event (ad infinitum)? Seeing that an infinite regress of causation is not possible because there cannot be an infinite amount of time in which an infinite amount of events could take place, the ultimate cause of the universe cannot be an impersonal event.Timeless, spaceless, and immaterialIn answering to the proposition that the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, Pro surprisingly said that energy is all of this. But indeed, to say that energy is all of this is a claim which must be supported by actual evidences. Pro has not given any evidences and thus, this claim must for now be dismissed. Unimaginable powerfulIn answering to the proposition that the cause of the universe must be unimaginable powerful, Pro said: "You stated above that whatever caused the universe must be "unimaginable powerful" an this assertion is both untrue and unsupported. Alexander Fleming first brought penicillin into the universe. Is he "unimaginable powerful"?What Alexander Fleming did doesn't really require much power. But it is true that some things does require power, and sometimes a lot of power. For example, it does require a lot of power to create a house just by yourself. We can say that the one who created this house was a powerful person. However, how powerful someone is depends on the thing which this someone has made or created. The person who build a real house is surely more powerful than the person who just build a sand house on the beach, for example. And there is little doubt that the one who caused the universe was more powerful than anything we humans can think of. Remember, we are now talking about the whole universe.So although we can say that someone who for example build a house is powerful, the one who caused the universe must have been extremely more powerful. Indeed, I think we can rightly say that God was this powerful being, a being which is even thought of as omnipotent. It must also be noted that just being powerful doesn't at all qualify you as the cause of the universe. You must also be personal, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. God, in contrast to Alexander Fleming for example, have all these properties. A reasonable person would therefore agree that it is more probable that this being which we call God caused the universe. 2. Pro said that we can find out what was before the big bang. But how can we find out what was before the big bang, and what evidences have been given to support this claim? Nothing. You can't just claim something and move on without supporting it. As for God being exempt from the laws of physics because you want him to be, I do agree with this. I never, however, said that God is exempt from the laws of physics simply just because I want him to be, so I really don't know why Pro keeps bringing this up. Pro also said that energy can never be created or destroyed, and that nothing can create energy. But even if we grant that this is true, how would it damage the KCA or show that it is ridiculous? This is a crucial question which Pro needs to answer, or his whole energy stuff would be meaningless.Lastly, Pro said that if the KCA would hold, then there cannot be a physical God. How would this, however, damage the KCA in the slightest or show that it is ridiculous? I will leave this question for Pro to answer. 3. In this section, Pro basically talked about how we can't say that the KCA doesn't apply to the main subject of one or another kind of law, and that the KCA doesn't apply to everything. What Pro said in this section is a little bit confusing, at least for me. I can't quite understand what Pro is trying to say here, so it would be nice if Pro could elaborate and explain in his next round what he is trying to say. However, I think I maybe know what Pro is trying to say here. Pro is saying (and please do correct me if I am wrong) that we cannot claim that premise 2 of the KCA (whatever begins to exist has a cause) doesn't apply to God. But note that this premise is only saying that whatever begins to exist has a cause. God, however, never began to exist and thus, it is completely right to say that this premise doesn't apply to God. Pro also said that if we claim that the KCA doesn't apply to God, we are saying that we cannot possibly know it to apply to the universe, as it is supposed to apply to everything. First of all, it is very mistaken to say that the KCA is supposed to apply to everything. The KCA is only supposed to apply to things which begins to exist, as I previously made clear. As for Pro's claim that if we say that the KCA doesn't apply to God, we are saying that we cannot possibly know it to apply to the universe, this just doesn't make sense. To be honest, I don't even know what Pro is talking about here. I would like to again ask Pro if he could elaborate on this. For example, how does it follow that we cannot possibly know that the KCA applies to the universe if we claim that the KCA doesn't apply to God?4. Pro said that if God is not physical, he can't interact with anything physical. No reasons or evidences are given to support this claim. But even if we grant that this is true, would this therefore mean that God couldn't cause the universe? I don't see how that would follow. Now, Pro asked that if God does not exist in our universe then how could he have caused it? Well, by simply just choosing to do so. And it's worth noting that in order to cause the universe, God himself cannot exist in it. You have to first be outside of the natural universe in order to cause it. To be in the universe before you even cause it, or to be in the universe at the same time as you cause it, is incoherent and impossible. 5. Pro said: "It contradicts what you have just said in the following way." Everything has a beginning and thus a cause. But God has always existed." See? Hypocrisy!" The KCA doesn't say that God has always existed. The KCA only argues that the universe must have cause because it began to exist, and giving some properties to this cause, we can come to see that this cause is God. So there is no hypocrisy in the KCA. I do myself, however, agree that God has always existed. Indeed, everything which begins to exist have a cause, but there must also exist an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes.