The Kalam Cosmological Argument (+Conceptual Analysis) is sound

I thank MadMallow (Pro) for this debate today. Due to the character limitations of each argument, I will present my argument over two rounds: the first (this one) will deal with the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) itself, and the second will deal with the conceptual analysis. 
Observations:
O1: Energy (matter is energy through Einstein’s equation: e=mc^2 [1]) cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another. [2]
Arguments:
If x, then y. If not y, then not x. [3]
In order for an argument to be true, it must be logically sound. If it isn’t logically sound, then it is not true.
Premise: The cause of X cannot be dependant on X itself. X also cannot cause X to exist.
Causes of a particular effect are not singular (there are multiple causes). [4]
The causes and effects are causally continuous (the cause of one thing is the effect of another) [5]. This chain of causes and effects extend all the way back to the big bang (since no matter or energy can come out of nothing). 
The chain of causes and effects cannot be sliced up arbitrarily. [6]
Since all events in the universe happens due to the existence of the big bang they are all effects. Therefore, the only certain, definite cause is the big bang itself.
The big bang itself is simply the beginning of the existence of the universe.
Therefore, cause = the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
Therefore, the KCA can be rewritten as:

1. Anything that begins to exist has the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
   
2. The universe began to exist.
   
3. Therefore, the universe has the existence of the universe as its causal condition. In other words, the universe caused the universe to exist.
   

KCA, causally speaking, states that the universe caused itself. This contradicts the first premise. Since the KCA is contradictory, it is not logically sound, and thereby not true. 
II.        KCA commits Equivocation Fallacy
Energy (matter is energy through Einstein’s equation: e=mc^2) cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed from one form to another. This is known as a transformational creation. Something else existed before it was created. This stance is additionally supported by the conservation of matter (energy (and thus matter) can never be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form to another) P1 posits its claim using transformational creation. (This is extensively demonstrated in previous argument)
When talking about the creation of the universe, P2 is talking about creation ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing (since the universe didn’t come out of anything). 
Thus, the KCA commits an equivocation fallacy.
III.         KCA commits Circular Reasoning
Premise: The labelling/naming of objects are entirely subjective.

1. All objects exist as an arrangement of atoms/molecules under a certain name/label. 
   
2. The label made to a particular object only exists in the mind of the conceiver (subjective). 
   
1. If the names of objects were objective, then it would mean the entire range of all possible entities (even abstract ones) would have to be considered as objectively existing. This includes made-up, nonsensical entities such as the “abfieidjcieoc”, an invisible being with exactly 124245203473485072 appendages, which (objectively speaking) exists because it is technically within the range of all possible entities. This would mean that there are many more objects than there are atoms which make up objects, which is impossible given a finite universe with a beginning. 
   
2. Different conceivers have different interpretations of different objects. If the names of objects were objective, then each of these interpretations would objectively exist. That is, the function of the object would itself be an objective concept. I could call any object anything, and it would then begin to exist objectively. Since there are infinitely many attributes I could give an object, following the assumption that labels are objective, it would once again follow that an infinite amount of things would come from a finite amount of particles. 
   

Given that something doesn’t become that particular thing until it is named so (since names are subjective), and that something begins to exist when we assign the existence (name) to it, it is apparent that object didn’t always exist as that particular object. It was something else before it started to exist. Since a particular object did not exist as that object before, and it does now, it must have had a particular point in time that it “began to exist”. In short, an “object” that is “created” does not exist before time x, but exists afterwards.
With the same logic that an object does not exist before time x and can be made to exist, it can exist before time y and be made to “unexist”. For example, if I made a chair out of wood, then the chair would come into existence after time x, and not before. If I then burn the wooden chair, it would no longer be a chair, existing before time y and ceasing to exist afterwards. The question with this is, at what point does the chair (or any other object) start or cease to “exist”. If we built up a chair, one molecule at a time, at what point would it become a chair? Similarly, if I removed one molecule at a time from the chair, at what point does it not become a chair? This is an example of the Sorites paradox [7], which concludes that any pinpointing of the “beginning” or “end” state of an “object” is completely arbitrary. That is, the emergence of the existence of an “object” is continuous. That is, an object is never ALWAYS that same object throughout time.
Without the name/label (subjectives), the object is simply a collection of atoms/molecules. It is the labels that gives a thing its particular “existence”. Since all of the molecules for a particular object already existed beforehand, so the beginning of the “existence” of a particular object must have been a conceptual one, with no clearly defined parameters. This makes all objects subjective (except for the mass energy that makes them up).
As posited by the laws of conservation, mass and energy must be conserved, that is, all energy that exists has existed since the big bang, and will always continue to exist. 
Since all of the energy that makes everything that exists ultimately came from the big bang (creation of the universe), and that everything else that is derived from said energy is subjective (abstracts do not objectively exist), we can say that the universe is synonymous with everything that exists/began to exist (all of the energy in the universe). 
Since the universe and everything are synonymous, we can replace the word “everything” in the KCA with the word “universe”. With that, we get this:

1. The universe has the existence of the universe as its causal condition.
   
2. The universe began to exist.
   
3. Therefore, the universe has the existence of the universe as its causal condition. In other words, the universe caused the universe to exist.
   

Not only is this argument contradictory (same problem as the last one), but now, one of the premises and the conclusion are the same. This is circular reasoning.
Conclusion:
As I have demonstrated that the KCA is logically unsound (it contradicts itself, and commits logical fallacies), it now rests on my opponent to counter the argument presented. Due to character limitations, I will present my rebuttal of the conceptual analysis next round. 
Sources:

1. http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Derive.htm#.Xa29LJNKg1g
   
2. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-chemistry/chapter/the-laws-of-thermodynamics/
   
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens
   
4. https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/phil/english/sections/linguist/independent/kursmaterialien/TechComm/acchtml/caus.html
   
5. https://ripplecentral.com/newtons-law-of-rippling/
   
6. https://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/
   
7. https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2007-8/93914/_HANDOUTS/sorites.pdf
   

Thank you Madmallow (Pro) for your thoughtful response. There are several issues with Pro’s rebuttal that I will point out in the next round, but for this one, I will focus on the conceptual analysis which Pro has provided. Anyways, I will now proceed to make my argument against the Conceptual Analysis.
Arguments

1. Unsubstantiated Premise/B+W Fallacy
   

“A” Syllogism

9a puts forth only two options for causes that are immaterial, spaceless, and timeless, without explaining why only these two options are the case. This is a black and white fallacy [1]. 
10a makes an unsubstantiated claim, that the universe cannot be caused by an abstract object. Therefore, by the principles of Hitchens’ Razor [2], this syllogism will be dismissed.  Additional evidence will need to be presented in order for this syllogism to become valid. Because of this, I will be arguing against the “B” syllogism.
_________________________________________________________________________
“B” Syllogism

This syllogism claims that a timelessly existing impersonal condition cannot be the cause of the universe, since if it were, the universe would exist timelessly/eternally. In other words, a timelessly existing impersonal condition cannot be the cause of the universe both because it is timelessly existing, and because it is impersonal. I will show how both of these conditions are wrong.
 

1. Begging the Question
   

If we say that the cause of the universe cannot be an impersonal condition, then this syllogism would essentially be begging the question [3], since it would imply the cause of the universe to be personal in its premise. This means that if Pro is claiming that the cause of the universe can only be personal, then they have yet to substantiate it. Therefore, using Hitchens’ Razor [2], I can, for now, remove “impersonal” as a reason why an abstract object cannot be the cause of the universe. This leaves “timelessly existing” as the only other factor that abstract objects cannot be the cause of the universe.
_________________________________________________________________________
If we are to say that abstract objects cannot be the cause of the universe because they are timelessly existing, then we are implying that the cause of the universe is not timelessly existing, and that would contradict a statement made in the definitions.

1. Contradicts definitions
   

In Pro’s definition of “begins to exist”, they make the statement that “eternal and timeless beings did not begin to exist, rather they have always existed”. The notion that the cause of the universe is not timelessly existing directly contradicts this statement, meaning that timeless, eternal existence cannot be a factor as to why abstract objects cannot be the cause of the universe.
Additional Points

1. Ambiguous Definitions
   

In Pro’s definition of “begins to exist”, Pro states that “There can't also be any state of affairs where X existed timelessly.” State of affairs is undefined here, and I wish to ask Pro what it means in this context.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have shown how the conceptual analysis (proving that the cause of the universe, assuming there is one, is a personal one) is logically flawed. I will provide a rebuttal to all of Pro’s arguments next round. In the meantime, I look forward to Pro's next argument. 
Sources:

1. https://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html
   
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
   
3. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question
   

I apologize to Pro, but unfortunately, due to unexpected circumstances, I am unable to produce an argument this round. 

I would like to take this opportunity to summarize the discussion so far.

On the first round, I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its conceptual analysis leading to the conclusion that a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, and personal cause of the universe exists.

CON's objections were fallacious. First he makes the assumption that the initial big bang singularity is uncaused. I showed that, without any justification, this is begging the question and special pleading. Next, he made the case that the cause in Premise 1 only applies to Creatio Ex Materia. I argued that Premise 1 can also apply outside Creatio Ex Materia. CON's third objection falsely equivocated the universe with everything that exists which, as I showed, is begging the question for scientific naturalism.

For the conceptual analysis, the area of contention were mostly about the defense of Premise 9.

"A" Syllogism (Defense for Premise 9)

CON argues that the "A" syllogism is a false dichotomy. While 9a does assert that there are only two possibilities, it's not fallacious. An exhaustive analysis of all things that are timeless, spaceless, and immaterial will lead to the same conclusion. Of course, in order to show that this is a false dichotomy, CON must provide an alternative answer which he failed to do.

Lastly, CON confuses the definition of abstract objects. Abstract objects can't cause anything by definition. This is the reason why it cannot cause the universe to exist.

Having said all of these, it seems to me that the argument was sufficiently defended.

CON wasn't able to make any new arguments in the last round. That is why, I intentionally published this rebuttal after a week to give CON some more time to collect his thoughts. I look forward to CON's next rebuttal.

Thank you MadMallow for your responses thus far. In this round, I will be addressing all of them. Before I do that, I will first need to establish some key observations which some of my rebuttals will be based upon.
Observations:
O1. The Big Bang
In Pro’s argument, it was stated that time, space, and all energy/matter originated from the moment of the big bang. At first, this seemed like a reasonable statement. However, upon further research, I found that this was not the case. To respond to Pro’s question about what the big bang is, it is the earliest point in which we can trace back our universe (by reversing the cosmic expansion we observe) to which our laws of physics would still make sense. [1] Once we try to go back before the big bang, our physics breaks down. This is because the General Theory of Relativity (the current model used to describe space and time) is incompatible with the quantum realm that an infinitesimally small universe would be under. [2] In that sense, we cannot definitively say that all time, space, and matter began at the big bang. Instead, we can only say that the physical laws describing our universe (Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity) started making sense in the first few instances after the big bang. 
O2. Naturalism
In Pro’s argument, it was stated that abstract objects are immaterial, and that they are not bounded by the physical universe. This is false. Abstract objects are things conceived in a mind. [3] As such, the process of which the mind creates thoughts are well known. Electrical currents which are fired from synapses from one neuron to the next creates thought processes, and those thought processes are what give rise to the conception of abstractions. [4] In fact, neuroscientists have already invented a machine that can (for now, crudely) predict what you are thinking based off of the electrical signals given off by the brain. [5] Other neuroscientists have even gone so far as to “input” action thoughts into the brains of mice using electrical currents. [6] Given that our brains, fundamentally, are made of the same stuff as mice (as all brains are made of the same stuff and work in basically the same way) [7], it would not be unlikely that thoughts could be input into our brains too. Since electrical currents are concrete, and that thoughts are produced by said currents, the abstractions which are produced by those thoughts are concrete, in the form of electrical signals. 
Rebuttals:
1A. Begging the Question
In Pro’s counter, he stated that my first objection claimed that the big bang was the first cause. This is not what my argument stated. By “the only certain, definite cause is the big bang itself”, I meant that the earliest cause that we can be sure actually happened (shown in observation 1) is the big bang. We would not be able to describe what happened before using our current laws of physics, so therefore, we cannot be certain or definite of them. The earliest moment to which we are sure the causal chains go back to, therefore, is the big bang itself.
1B. Special Pleading
This counter can be addressed with the exact same rebuttal as the previous one. I did not assert that the big bang was the first cause, I stated that it is the first cause that we can be sure of, using our laws of physics. 
1C. Equivocation Fallacy
In this counter, Pro stated that you cannot equivocate “cause” and “the causal condition of the existence of the universe”. This would only be true if there were objects not attached to the universe, since if everything were in the universe, and everything has a cause, then the earliest certain cause (big bang) would be the causal condition of everything that follows. As shown by Observation 2, this is not the case. To respond to his Freezing Water analogy, temperature can be added or removed by external factors. The reason that the water freezes is because heat energy was removed from the water into the surroundings. That is a cause, and since all causes are causally connected, the original statement still remains true. As for the 1+2=3 analogy, I have also covered it in O2.
2. P1 is not limited to material causation
This point has been thoroughly covered by O2. That is, abstract objects are concrete. Beethoven’s fifth was conceived by his mind, which shown in O2, is completely concrete. 
3A. Red Herring
Pro argues here that because I directly laid out the Sorites Paradox as the justification that the universe is synonymous with everything that exists/began to exist. I never laid it out directly from the Sorites Paradox. I simply used it to show that you couldn’t give an object a definite starting/ending point. Objection 3 ultimately goes back to the fact that as far as we are concerned, everything that was “created” was made from pre-existing matter. 
3B. Non-sequitur
Here, Pro argues that "universe" is not synonymous with "everything that exists". He elaborates on this point by saying that abstract objects exist and that they are not part of the universe. I have shown that abstract objects do not exist in O2.
3C. Begging the Question
O2 sufficiently deals with this point.
4. Black-and-White Fallacy
In Pro’s counter, he argued that since the only two possible entities that can fit the description of an immaterial, spaceless, and timeless beings are abstract objects and personal agents, that there is no B+W fallacy here. However, even if we are to accept that abstractions exist outside of the mind, there are more than two entities which fit the description. For example, in string theory [8], there are quantum-scale strings which form the elementary particles, which make up matter. They are immaterial, as they “create” matter (X cannot come from X). They are spaceless, as the 6 other dimensions of string theory do not occupy physical space (x, y, and z axis). They are timeless, because the other 5 dimensions are unaffected by the 4th dimension (time axis). 
5. Unsubstantiated claim
Pro has substantiated his claim. However, in the process of doing so, has stated that concrete mental objects exist. In other words, a mind can create a concrete object through sheer willpower. This has never been demonstrated before (as all things created were made from pre-existing material). Without any evidence to back this assertion up, this is not only another unsubstantiated claim, but is now also a special pleading fallacy (as Pro has also stated that God has created all material ex nihilo). 
6. Begging the Question
There are two things that I have to say about this. Firstly, Pro states that X (a personal agent endowed with the ability to choose) can choose to make the universe out of his own volition. However, the process of choosing to do something requires time, and since this realm is timeless, there would be no time for X to make his choice. Secondly, Pro again asserts that the universe was created 13.8 Billion years ago. O1 deals with this sufficiently.
7. Contradicts Definitions (B syllogism)
I presented this premise as a conditional, and since Pro does not believe that eternal existence is the reason for the causal inertness of an abstract object, this premise would not apply.
Conclusions:
In this round, I have refuted Pro’s counters with two additional observations (O1 and O2). I look forward to Pro’s final round.
Sources:

1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/
   
2. https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11758.html
   
3. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4r.htm
   
4. https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/what-are-thoughts-made-of/
   
5. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/36/22/6069.short?sid=39264297-467f-403a-9806-429798f2237c
   
6. https://www.nature.com/news/laser-used-to-control-mouse-s-brain-and-speed-up-milkshake-consumption-1.20995
   
7. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2893
   
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
   

In this round, I will reply to CON's two new arguments and hopefully recap and make some final statements.

While it's true that the General Theory of Relativity can't accurately describe the universe at planck time due its limitations (quantum mechanics), we do know a few things about expanding universes. In 2003, three cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth (father of inflationary spacetime), and Alexander Vilenkin mathematically proved that any universe which is on-average expanding throughout its lifespan has an absolute beginning. [1] Since we have every reason to believe that the universe has been and will continue to expand throughout its lifespan, we can conclude that our universe too has an absolute beginning. [2]

More than that, I presented two more arguments exploiting the problems with a past-infinite universe. CON hasn't responded to the defence from thermodynamics which states that if the past were infinite, we should be now in a state of thermodynamic heat death. CON also hasn't responded to the defence from unsolvable paradoxes which states that if the past were infinite, unsolvable paradoxes occur.

The point is, even if the General Theory of Relativity is insufficient in tracing the universe back to the planck time, we still have other good reasons to think that the universe began to exist.

CON says that because abstract objects are thoughts created by the electrical signals in the brain, and the electrical signals in the brain are concrete, that therefore abstract objects are concrete objects.

The process from which we think thoughts is not the same as the object being thought of. Just because electricity produces the light in the bulb does not mean the light in the bulb is the same as the electricity. The light in the bulb does not have the same properties as the electricity. In the same way, Just because electrical signals in the brain create the thoughts of abstract objects does not mean that abstract objects are the same as the electrical signals in the brain. Abstract objects do not have the same properties as the electrical signals in the brain. If the electrical signals in the brain are concrete, that does not mean abstract objects are concrete too.

Virtually no philosophers today would argue that abstract objects are concrete.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "It is widely supposed that every entity falls into one of two categories: Some are concrete; the rest abstract." [3] It also explores a possible distinction: "An object is abstract if and only if it is both non-physical and non-mental."

Wikipedia describes this as, "Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether the object that a term describes has physical referents. Abstract objects have no physical referents, whereas concrete objects do." [4]

As we can see, CON has mistaken the definition and the distinction of abstract and concrete objects.

If the big bang is not the first cause, then the big bang itself is caused too. In that case, there should be no argument over the main syllogism of the Kalam which only shows that the universe (including the big bang) has a cause.

If there is one thing I hope to impart, it's that we ought to examine the very foundation of our beliefs and follow the evidence where it leads. As for me, when I did that, I found that I have a lot to learn and a lot to change and it has strengthened my faith. That may not apply for some of you, but for those that do, I hope you find your way closer to the truth. Keep asking questions.

I thank my opponent, MadMallow, for this debate. Unfortunately, I do not have time to make a closer. I ask the judges to base their decisions on the evidence provided. Once again, thank you to MadMallow and all of the voters.