The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a sound argument for God's existence

First, a clarification about the word I've used, infinite. In round two, Dakota asked me to elucidate on why no infinites can exist, except for God. Then I explained that infinite has two separate meanings. First, I used the word "infinite" to indicate that the universe cannot be eternal as it would be impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments. And yet this moment has come. I did not use this term in reference to God because I am arguing that only one God exists, not an infinite number. Second, Infinite has a second meaning, unlimited. This term can be used for God because He is unlimited. I could simply substitute "unlimited" in the place of "infinite. " As such, I have not equivocated. Third, I may have misunderstood Dakota's confusion from last round. I didn't even use the word "infinite" in reference to God in an "unlimited" sense, so I haven't equivocated. However, I think Dakota was asking how God could have existed forever but not the universe, if an "infinite" cannot exist. So let me take another crack at explaining. As I have shown, an infinite number of moments cannot exist. It is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments. Yet this moment has come, so the universe is not eternal. However, it is not an impossibility for God to have existed forever. God exists outside of the universe, so He is not bound by its natural laws. We, as temporal beings, only exist in one moment in time. We cannot exist in more than one moment in time. However, God exists in the future, as much as in the present, as much as in the past. God is a Necessary Being. It is in his nature to exist. He will have no end because He had no beginning. But aside from the philosophical reason that we can see the universe had a beginning, we can also see the same through the scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, and so had a cause of its existence, a cause outside of itself. I don't agree that we're not justified to believe that things that begin to exist ex nihilo have a cause. The universe didn't just pop into existence. If we accept the Big Bang as a creation model for the universe, the Big Bang was still a cause of its existence. And if you accept that there was a singularity at the beginning of time that exploded into the universe, then you would have to show how that singularity was able to explode into the universe we have today. If I leave dynamite on the ground, it's not going to explode on its own. Someone has to come along and light the fuse. If there was a singularity that has always existed, there would have to be a catalyst for it to bulid up energy and then explode. On top of that, explosions don't create order; they cause chaos. It would be impossible for me to give an example of things that come into existence ex nihilo that need a cause because we only really have one example, the universe. But if the universe can come into existence ex nihilo without a cause, why not more things? Why don't humans, or cars come into existence ex nihilo? Even if you accept the Copenhagen model of quantum mechanics (which is only one of several, and there's no reason to accept that one over all the rest), the particles which are alleged to pop into existence from nothing, don't actually come from nothing. The "nothingness" that quantum mechanics uses is not non-existence, but a sea of transient particles. These particles come through a quantum fluctuation, which requires the existence of a wave function. Without a wave function, you have no quantum fluctuations. So what caused the quantum wave functions? Now, regarding the two arguments Dakota recommended, I would accept the ex nihilo argument as true. Dakota states that there is no evidential support for premise one, that everything that begins to exist ex nihilo has a cause. This may or may not be true. However, to state that it is absolutely not true because there is no evidence for it is to make an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. But humans begin to exist at fertilization. The cause is the male sperm meeting the female ovum. However, we don't actually exist ex materia because the sperm and egg cease to exist once the new human is created. This is different from a car, in which once the car is designed you can still detect the materials that it was created from. Dakota did, in fact, state that we can use logic as evidence for it. While we can't necessarily use our empirical senses to prove this, I really don't think it's a huge leap to suppose that if anything that exists ex materia requires a cause, that anything that exists ex nihilo also requires a cause. beginning to exist is beginning to exist. Why does the method for its beginning to exist determine whether or not there was a Creator? Regarding Dakota's two "foremost" claims:First, I can see his point. The particular God that I believe in is an intelligent God, the one spelled out in the Bible. But I am of the opinion that the naturalistic arguments for God's existence (including this one, the Teleological Argument, the Moral Argument, etc. ) don't necessarily point to the God of the Bible. Once you've established God's existence through naturalistic means, then you either leave it at Deism (that a God exists but is unconcerned with human affairs), or try to show which God is the true God. I believe that if a God exists and created mankind, He would surely take an interest in what happens to us. There have been many holy books which claim to be God's revealed word to mankind. Once you have established God's existence, the next step is to discover which holy book is the one God actually revealed to mankind. I believe the Bible to be God's revealed word and as such, to be the intelligent God behind the naturalistic explanations. But this is another debate entirely. As such, while I believe we can use the KCA to establish a God exists, it doesn't necessarily follow from this argument alone that the God that exists is an intelligent creator. But a dumb creator is still a creator, none-the-less. As for his second point, I addressed it at the beginning of this argument. Thank you for reading, and thank you, Dakota, for the debate.