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

Hello, my gracious opponent. Thank you for putting forth your proposition I will now endeavour to answer it. First let me start off by saying I have no bias for or against the cosmological argument, in that, if you could persuade me to think it was not a good argument to use in a debate I would happily accept that conclusion, however I am currently of the opinion that you are wrong. I will remind the reader that we are not arguing whether or not the cosmological argument is right or wrong, just whether or not it is a bad argument, and therefore, should not be used in a debate concerning the existence of God. First I'll address my opponents points: Definition of Argument in Question: Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The Universe began to exist. Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe had a cause. My opponent's first point: "The argument is valid, but I now realize it is not sound. The first premise can be rejected because we can find evidence that contradicts it, most notably in quantum mechanics. " My reply: This implies that we are debating whether or not the argument is correct, which we are not. Just whether or not it has enough merit to be used, for which I posit that the argument only has to be possible, not absolutely correct, since a debate by its very nature is over an issue that is not resolved. You even admitted that the argument was valid as your very first statement. If you are saying the argument is invalidated by quantum mechanics, and therefor 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. My opponent's second point: "The second premise can be rejected because we cannot say that the Universe had a beginning - theories like the Big Bang only explain the origin of the observable universe, not everything that exists. Furthermore, even if we grant the first two premises, the conclusion only gets you to a First Cause. There is no reason to think this First Cause is God - it only has to be "something" capable of creating a universe. The universe could be a part of a multiverse with an infinite stream of baby universes birthed out of each other. Who knows?" My reply: The weakness in your premise here is that the 'something' capable of creating the universe would have to have many, if not all, of the attributes of God, to the point where it would be a moot point whether or not you called it God or not. If it caused everything, then all power would have to be from it, by necessity, all that is comes from that which is, all that is contains all power, that which caused all power, has all power. And of course you could make the same argument for knowledge, etc. until you had a definition of God. William Lane Craig makes this exact argument, and rather better than I could. As to the first point, the weakness or strength of the Big Bang, I think that is your better argument, or at least it would be if you could prove that we lacked evidence for the universe, and all that is, having a beginning. If you could prove that the universe did not have a beginning, or something to that effect, then you would in fact prove the cosmological argument to be a bad argument, and therefore not good enough to be used in a debate. My points: I will now lay out my argument as for why the cosmological argument is valid and permissible in debates concerning the existence of God. While not a perfect argument because it does not completely conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt in the mind that there must needs be a God, the argument still points evidentially towards the possibility that there is a God, and therefore is a valid argument in supporting such a hypothesis in a debate, and certainly not worth being discarded by debaters. My second point, is that my opponent is making an emotional argument. Having agreed that the cosmological argument was valid, but in their opinion, flawed, does not make it so flawed that it has no merit, so that it should be discarded in a debate by all parties. If the argument was so flawed, it would be less likely to be used for as long, and in as many debates as it has over the existence of God. It is a staple argument, I would argue, and one that has even elicited much thought even among its opponents. Which leads me to my last point. It is a good debate rhetoric. I think I have proven in my response and opening arguments here, that the cosmological argument is good enough to at least get people to think, even if they disagree, and to elicit conversation, as evidenced even by this very debate itself. This debate is almost self-refuting in that we are both arguing about the cosmological argument itself, which would not itself be a debate unless the cosmological argument has rhetorical merit, which I argue it does. And because it does, it should not be discarded in debates concerning the existence of God.