the Kalam Cosmological Argument

Opening
Thank you MarkWebberFan for accepting this debate.
I, Jarrett_Ludolph, will be taking the position that the KCA is unsuccessful (as stated in the description) and that it fails. seldiora with be taking the position that the KCA is successful (also stated it the description) and that it doesn't fail.
I.Core Syllogism
As MarkWebberFan should already know, the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(KCA) has a core syllogism that is as follows:
P1 everything that begins to exist, has a cause
P2 the universe began exist
C1 The universe has a cause 
II.Broader Conversation
The core syllogism doesn't prove a God in and of itself, however, the broader conversation might, and is as follows:
Whatever caused all of matter to exist cannot be made of matter (immaterial).
 Whatever caused all of the spatial dimensions to exist must exist independent of spatial dimensions (spaceless).
 Whatever caused all of time to exist must exist independent of time (timeless).
 Whatever caused the universe to exist must be extremely powerful.
 The cause of the universe is immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and extremely powerful.
This may not prove any particular God, but it would be a very weird form of disbelief, one not even worth believing, to concede that there was an immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and extremely powerful cause to the universe.
Arguments
I.Objections to core syllogism
The major objection I have to the core syllogism is to premise 2. The universe began to exist. The big bang is commonly thought to be the beginning of all space and time, however the big bang isn't necessarily the beginning. For example, the big bang could just be the universe going from a period of contraction to expansion, as theoretical physicist Sean Carroll puts it:
"the Big Bang isn't the beginning of time, but rather that it was a moment of symmetry. In this idea, prior to the Big Bang, there was another universe, identical to this one but with entropy increasing toward the past instead of toward the future"[1]
This means that on "the other side" of the big bang. There may be another universe, that is "running backwards" through time, in the opposite direction, making the universe infinite, so it never truly began to exist, therefore the argument is unsuccessful. To quote Carroll again:
"time would run opposite to time in the modern universe and our universe would be in the past." [1]
Also a more minor point, is that the universe couldn't begin to exist, since matter and energy cannot be made, because of the law of conversation of matter and energy
Objections to broader conversation
Also, the broader conversation says, that whatever created the universe must be immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and extremely powerful. 
I disagree with these premises, since the big bang could have originated from the vacuum of space, without an immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and extremely powerful cause. Now, before you say something cannot come from nothing, there's actually a lot of something in the vacuum of space. There's the laws of physics, energy and pressure. Since the universe actually has zero net energy (the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravity) the universe could have been created, while not breaking the law of conversation of matter and energy. This is called the quantum fluctuation model.[2]
 If something doesn't break the laws of physics, in quantum mechanics, it happens with some probability. So as long as the this event,"the big bang" has some sort of probability (which it does), no matter how small the probability, it will eventually happen. It's important to not that this wouldn't be a true beginning either, since the vacuum of space (with all its energy and pressure) is still part of the universe, and it didn't begin to exist
Conclusion
There are multiple models for the origins of the universe, two are Carroll's model, and the quantum fluctuation model. I only need one to explain the universe naturalistically  and if I can explain the universe naturalistically, then the KCA fails. Both of these models contradict the KCA .This is because I would not need to accept that the universe was caused by an immaterial, spaceless, timeless, and extremely powerful being. It's important to note that these models don't debunk the idea of God itself, since other arguments for God still exist.
Sources
[1] (Live Science article about Sean Carroll's view of origins)
https://www-livescience-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.livescience.com/amp/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=16014350454147&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.livescience.com%2F65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html
[2] (interview with theoretical physicist Alex Vilenkin)
https://youtu.be/PSESZR3wC8s

I appreciate the warm remarks. I accept Jarrett_Ludolph’sterms and conditions. I think it’s a good idea to note that the KCAis an argument that establishes God as a metaphysically necessary being. Inthis debate, my argument will utilize unconventional sources. I’ve scoured theinternet for contemporary use of the KCA and it pains me to admit that I’m notparticularly motivated to present them in this debate. I’m aware that myapproach is reckless and might backfire because arguments from peculiar sourcesmay veer off topic. In any case, If Jarrett_Ludolph wants to note that Iviolated the terms of the debate by veering off topic, he is free to do so. Inthe same spirit, I am free to present arguments which I find interesting.

I think the KCA argues that God is a being that existsindependent of time and space. That said, I want to argue that the samemetaphysical idea is present in Aristotle’s writings:

Human nature is predisposed to seek knowledge; It seeksknowledge for its own sake. Knowledge is independent of human nature asknowledge only exists as mere fact, not as one that is dependent on humandesires. In this way, acquisition of the entirety of laws of nature must beattributed to a non-dependent cause: God.
 
Rebuttal: Infinite regress

Con argues that he has serious objections to the secondpremise. He offers an account that the universe is undergoing contraction andexpansion. He argues that there is a possibility of different worlds that simultaneouslyexists. He fails to address the single most important issue: Infinite regress.

I will not post any new arguments for this round. I extend my arguments from the previous round to this one. 

I will ask MarkWebberFan to explain why he failed to respond last round. If he gives a legitimate explanation in either the comment section or in his next response (for example, he had surgery, or a family event, etc) I will ask the voters not to take away conduct points from him, however, if he doesn't give an explanation for his absence, or continues to have unexplanied round forfeits, I will ask the voters to deduct conduct points. 

Thank you 

I extend all points, if MarkWebberFan continues to miss rounds, I will claim victory.

since we're just waiting for MarkWebberFan to forfeit the rest of the rounds, here's a cool video on the origins of the universe:

I'm sorry about the forfeits.

I think it's time to end this debate. All points should be awarded to my opponent.