The Kalām Cosmolgical Argument attempts to prove very little.

"The Kalām Cosmological Argument [KCA] is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition." [1. http://en.wikipedia.org...] The classical argument is: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence; The universe has a beginning of its existence; Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence. There are modern variations of the argument, including one by William Lane Craig: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. There have been many debates on debate.org as to whether the KCA is a valid argument or not. Many people are interested in the argument, so I won't argue that it's not interesting. People are naturally curious, an it's an interesting puzzle. I maintain, however, that not much of importance depends upon whether or not the argument is true. How is "very little" to be judged? The KCA is presented as proof of the existence of God, and it's sometimes taken s proof of the existence of the Christian God or a similar God. I will argue that if it proves any god at all, it proves an uninteresting one. "Very little" is still subjective, but it is to be determined in that context. The Debate Thanks to my opponent for accepting this challenge. He has a strong record of debating on the side of religion. I hope readers will find our debate informative. The burden of proof in this debate is shared, meaning that the better case should prevail. In legal terms, it is the preponderance of evidence that determines the outcome. This opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. The Pro case will be given at the start of the second round. This debate is part of the "99th Percentile tournament." [2. http://www.debate.org...] RulesStandard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. The definitions given in the challenge stand as a condition of acceptance.DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Arguments and evidence may be presented in R4 in rebuttal to any previous argument, but no new arguments.DR 5. Dropped arguments are not counted as concessions. They may be taken up again or left to be judged as part of the case. DR 6. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.