The Cosmological Argument for God is a bad argument and people need to stop using it

I look forward to a good debate. Before I address my opponent's rebuttals, I feel that some minor clarification is in order to clear up some confusion, which is probably my fault. My assertion that the Cosmological Argument should not be used was not in reference to any sort of formal debate protocol (i. e. , Debate Police forbidding the use of the argument). My opinion is that the argument fails, for the reasons I've presented. Thus, for anyone wishing to successfully argue in favor of the existence of God, the Cosmological Argument would not be the recommended option. I said the argument is valid, meaning the conclusion flows logically from the premises; however, the premises are flawed, meaning the argument is unsound and not persuasive. So in essence, yes - we are actually debating the merits of the argument. My opponent said:"If you are saying the argument is invalidated by quantum mechanics, and therefore can no longer be used, that means quantum mechanics must definitely and provably contradict the cosmological argument, not merely only make it a possibility. In which case I and the readers await your presentation of the evidence from quantum mechanics. "I only need to show that the premises are contradicted. The first premise - "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" - is not true in the case of quantum fluctuations, or vacuum fluctuations, which are probabilistic energy changes that allow for particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles to appear out of nothing - without any cause. This has been known for almost a century to be a result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which basically outlines how uncertainty is intrinsic to space-time (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). Indeed, it may well have been the mechanism by which the Universe was formed, though that's still in dispute. The point is, at sub-atomic scales, uncaused things happen all the time; thus, the first premise fails. My opponent's statement,". .. the 'something' capable of creating the universe would have to have many, if not all, of the attributes of God. .. " cannot be justified unless you:1. Define the particular deity we're talking about (the argument assumes one of the classical monotheistic traditions, but I could be wrong about which god my opponent is referring to)2. Explain how one can determine the attributes of this deity. For this particular argument, the only attribute in question is the ability to create a universe. There's no reason for this 'something' to have any other attributes at all. For all we know, the Universe could have been created by universe-creating fairies who exist outside of space and time. My opponent said:". .. If it caused everything, then all power would have to be from it. ." However, this ignores what I said about the second premise. There is a bit of an equivocation fallacy regarding the word "Universe" in the Cosmological Argument. As I mentioned, our scientific understanding of the cosmos is limited to the observed universe. Therefore, we are not at liberty to say anything about the origins of everything that exists. I don't need to prove that everything (as opposed to the observable universe) did not have a cause; I only need to point out that we cannot say that everything (all of existence) necessarily did have a cause or began to exist - we simply don't know enough about everything to make the claim because all of our experience with cause and effect is limited to the observable universe. And even when using both usages of the word "Universe", the second premise doesn't work. If we interpret the word to mean "all that exists", we can't scientifically say whether it does or does not have a cause (and if it's really "all that exists", wouldn't that include God, too? ). If we limit the meaning to just the observable universe, the First Cause would only need to be powerful enough to create all that we can observe. Very powerful, yes - but all-powerful, as described by classical monotheism? Not necessarily. ". .. the argument still points evidentially towards the possibility that there is a God. " It also points equally as evidentially towards the possibility that there are universe-creating fairies. Or that we are a simulation in an advanced supercomputer from the future. The fact that the argument can be used for anything defined as a necessary cause of the universe means it is a poor argument to use to argue for the existence of God. ". .. my opponent is making an emotional argument. .. " I fail to see how emotions have anything to do with my argument. My point is that Cosmological Argument fails on both premises, making it unsound and without merit. The structural validity of the argument is virtually meaningless if it is not sound. I could give an argument like this:Premise 1: All dogs are from Jupiter. Premise 2: I have a dog. Conclusion: My dog is from Jupiter. This is a perfectly valid argument, but the opening premise is so flawed that the argument would be useless in proving that my dog is from Jupiter. The Cosmological Argument suffers from two flawed premises, but it takes advantage of confusion around the word "Universe" and a lack of understanding of physics to seem sound (there are several other problems we might get to eventually). A bad argument is a bad argument - it doesn't matter how many people have used it or for how long. Theists don't do themselves any favors by continuing to use it.