I thank my opponent for accepting the debate.
I'm going to argue that the Kalam Cosmilogical Argument isn't fully sound, and has manny errors and flaws with it (enough for it to be logically interpreted as false).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
P1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause
of its existence;
P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence;
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence.
P4: Since no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the
origin of the universe, the cause must be personal
William Lane Craig's reformulated argument
P1: Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
P3: Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.
P4: This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because he chose to create
Refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument's claims
Rebutting Premise 1 (applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments)
The problem with the first premise is that it is a completely basesless assertion. We have no
intuition (which is what the premise is based on) regarding things coming into existence, only
regarding pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged.
Nothing a human being is composed of "began to exist" when a person was conceived, a pre-existing sperm cell
and egg cell change their state by combining. This process divides, evolves, and enlarges into what we label a
human being eventually.  The human body is mostly made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen,
nitrogen calcium, and phosphorus , all of which existed before the person in question, for example.
The car you drive didn't "begin to exist", most of it was originally pre-existing steel, the steel was ore, the ore
was orginally dirt and so on and so forth.
Basically, a "car" is just a label we gave to something that is re-arranged pre-existing matter,
nothing actually began to exist when the car was made.
Claiming that intuition tells us "everything that begins to exist, has a cause" (or any version of this) is a baseless
claim, because we have no intuition based on things beginning to exist. We only have intuition involving
pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged.
Reasons To Believe Premise 1 Is False
We can actually indirectly observe virtual particle fluctuations actually popping in and out of
existence (beginning to exist), due to The Casimir effect, which is a direct consequence of virtual
particles so we know they happen.
They seem to be spontaneous, random, and uncaused (this does not mean that they for sure don't
have a cause, but the way they behave inticates they most likely do not).
"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom
decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with
quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the
quantum realm this holds only on average. Energy fluctuations out of nothing create short-lived
particle-antiparticle pairs, which is why the vacuum is not emptiness but a sea of transient
particles. An uncaused beginning, even out of nothing, for spacetime is no great leap of the
- Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville
Quantum effects are essentially uncaused, as far as is known, with several examples of violations
of Bell's inequalities .
Virtual particles seem to begin to exist uncaused
Conclusion regarding Premise 1:
1) The premise is baselss because we don't observe things beginning to exist in our lives,
we observe pre-existing things changing form and being rearranged.
2) One example of things "beginning to exist" we can indirectly observe are virtual particle fluctuations, which seem
to be random, spontaneous, and uncaused.
3) The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be interpreted as baseless,
not sound, and false.
Rebutting Premise 2 (applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments)
Theists use Big Bang cosmology to defend this premise, and while the universe as we know it did
have a beginning, there is no evidenece that the universe began to exist.
The Singularity contained infinite density, temperature, and infinite space-time curvature.
So if the singularity contained infinite time, then it's safe to say that the universe has existed for an
infinite amount of time (or at least contained and infinite amount of time). The universe as it was
(the singularity) expanded 13.7 billion years ago as the theory explains, there is nothing in Big Bang
cosmology which suggests that the singularity just popped into existence out of nothing (although
it may be possible due to what we know about Quantum Mechanics, but this is not what The Big
Bang Theory suggests)
Conclusion regarding premise 2:
The only thing backing this claim up is The Big Bang Theory, however the theory never suggests
that the singularity began to exist, only that the unviverse as we know it had a beginning and it
originated from the singularity.
Rebutting Premise 3 (applies to both the classical, and reformulated arguments)
Since neither Premise 1 or 2 are logically sound, then there is no reason to assume that this premise
holds any weight. It is a baseless assertion.
Rebutting Premise 4 (classical argument)
This premise commits the common logical fallacy called God of the Gaps , and therefore can be
(Basically the God of the Gaps argument is "I can't understand this so God did it.")
Rebutting premise 4 (reformulated argument)
Claiming that the cause must be personal because he chose to create the universe is yet, another
baseless assertion and completely irational. The premise assumes the cause must be a being with
Lets assume (for the sake of argument) that the only logical conclusion is that the universe had a
cause. This still wouldn't be a solid argument in favor of an intelligent creator, there are theories
which invoke causes of the universe that are not involving conscious beings.
"M-Theory also provided another crucial aspect of the puzzle in that it explained how the Big Bang
might have occurred, with two membranes colliding. The energy produced from such a collision is
mathematical consistent with what we know from existing science." 
There are also other theories which invoke causes of the universe as well (none of which have
solid evidence to support them, but still more evidence than God explanations).
1) Premise 1 (of either version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument) is not logically sound because
our intuition, which is the only basis for this premise, only leads us to an understanding of
pre-existing things changing form or rearranging, not things beginning to exist. Premise 1 is also most likely false,
because we can indirectly observe the effects of virtual particle fluctuations (things beginning to exist) which seem
to be uncaused.
2) Premise 2 may be true, but it may not be. Either way, there is no way to tell and there is no way
anyone can claim that the logic surrounding this premise is absolute.
3) If one of the two previous premises is not sound, then the third cannot be.
4) Premise 4 of the classical argument commits the logical fallacy known as God of the Gaps,
Premise 4 of the reformulated argument creates the fallacy of assuming that if a cause of the
universe is fact, then it is a conscious being
The Kalam Cosmological argument for God can be logically interpreted as false
Greenwolfdebates forfeited this round.