The KCA is ridiculous.

It is, frankly it seems like a cheap way out of cosmology to me. The Logic in the argument can be used against God and makes no sense. Not trying to be offensive here but I hate this argument with a passion. (Much like the fine tuning argument)1st round is acceptance.As I understand it the KCA is exactly as described by the lovely clash. But for some reason this argument is used by Pro God debaters (Godders!). I don't understand this. Here is why:HypocrisyI personally think this argument should be used against God. It states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. So we can say that the universe has a cause. Now if you have an understanding of Quantum physics and Relativity (Which I kind of do) you will know that the universe does have a cause, however, unlike the Religious would have us believe, that cause does not have to be a God. Now I hold that there is a possibility for a God. But I believe there is not and this argument is not an argument in my books. We know that the universe "Blew up" if you will, however that's just a term to show how fast it expanded. But it didn't expand out of nothing. Before the big bang, there was energy. This is still a developing theory but is supported by a large percentage of the scientific community. Everything that is now, is made of that same energy. Energy makes quarks, quarks make hadrons, hadrons make atoms, atoms make other stuff! So that is why we believe that god is not the only option. However, I am here to explain how it can be used against god. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" Something which can have physical impact on anything else, exists in the physical world. And so this applies to said thing. That thing is God. God must too have had a cause or he cannot exist in the physical world and did not create the Universe. So what caused a God? Well we have two options here. Either God is eternal and exists in a non physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful, or God does not exist. Either could be the reality if the KCA holds. Thus this argument is totally hypocritical because it states something and then refuses to acknowledge that that same law should apply to the main subject of the argument!Physical exemption!?Now whenever I use this argument, I get a response something like this."Yeah but God has always existed." First of all that contradicts exactly what you have just said , and secondly, I have already explained that if he exists he cannot be all powerful, and so you can't use the argument that he is exempt from the laws of physics. The history of religion is dotted with changes to beliefs that contradict one another. For example, many believe that God created us in his image. But as soon as we sent a man to the moon: "God is invisible." (So why aren't humans?) It is ridiculous to simply say that the laws of Physics do not apply to God. I find it to be a cheap way out of cosmology. You can't just, as soon as we come up with something that could make God unlikely or even impossible, say that that doesn't work with God though because he's all powerful. (So why do we have murder and rape?) If we simply accepted that God is immune to everything we know to govern our universe and EVERYTHING in it, we probably never would have had research done into the big bang, or inflation, or any other cosmological pursuit. Because we would have an answer.It seems like a desperate attempt to preserve beliefs, saying that nothing applies to God because he is all powerful, it's just a way of getting out of research and further pursuit of knowledge, and it is very dismissive.So what have I told you today? That the KCA makes God unlikely if it is to be taken as a serious argument, and that the defence of this argument "But god is all powerful" is invalid.I thank the clash for accepting this debate and look forward to his arguments!VOTE PROP!