The Kalam Cosmetological Argument

Thank you seldiora 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 seldiora 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.
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

Sadly, con is refuting the cosmological argument, not the Cosmetological argument as specified in the title. 

Cosmetology: the art or practice of the beautification of the skin, hair, or nails. [https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cosmetological#:~:text=the%20art%20or%20practice%20of,%2DOlogies%20%26%20%2DIsms.]

Con must refute some Kalam Cosmetological argument in order to win. He has not done so. Kalam is "Islamic scholastic theology" [http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/kalam.htm]. We have freedom of expression in America. Kalam Cosmetological wise, they should be able to do what they want to beautify the skin, hair or their nails according to religious belief. To infringe upon this otherwise is to go against the constitution.

I await con's argument.

Opening:
It's important to note that seldiora has ignored my objections in my first round, and if he continues to do so, I will win by default. Even though seldiora didn't give any rebuttal against my position, I will still respond to his first argument.
Rebuttal:
Grice's Razor
seldiora knew what I meant, in the context of the debate. There is no Kalam Cosmetological Argument, only the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and it was an argument for God. Context is king
If seldiora looked at the context of the debate, he would denote its meaning. When I said Kalam Cosmetological Argument you can clearly tell that I meant the Kalam Cosmological Argument, this is a good example of a implicature, or implying one thing while saying something else. [1]
This idea is known as Grice's Razor. 
“Senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity” — Paul Grice [2]
Grice is saying that you must look at the context; the ‘literal’ version of what is being said shouldn’t be taken in isolation. Let’s look at a quick example:
David: Kate — Are you coming to the sprint planning meeting?
Kate: Let me just grab a coffee…
While Kate didn't literally say she would come to the sprint planning meeting, it is conveyed that she will by the context of the answer. Similarly, even though I didn't say Kalam Cosmological Argument, it is also conveyed by the context. To quote MisterChris:
"Respond to what I meant, not what I said"
Conclusion:
seldiora's complaint that I didn't properly word the debate is useless. He disregarded the context, and tried to denote the debate's meaning in isolation of, and inspite of the situation. seldiora also didn't respond to any of my arguments of my first round, so I extend those to this round.
Sources:
[1]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/
[2] 
https://medium.com/@jossduggan/5-sharp-philosophical-razors-to-help-you-win-any-argument-4c4b6177fcc0

Sadly pro has offered no definitions so we are forced to accept the idea of a Cosmetological Argument. The ideas are completely different. Because of lack of details, pro's case fails. I remember someone said abortion should be allowed in case of rap. Not rape. These are two completely different results. One is thinking about music and lyrics while the other is a horrendous crime. You will not go to jail for rap (well, most times), but rape is a lifetime or death sentence. If the topic was, Rap Should Receive Death Penalty, and the description was, Rap is a horrible action that deserves death penalty, then we are arguing about rap, not rape. My case stands.

Opening:
It's important to note that seldiora has ignored my objections in my first round, and if he continues to do so, I will win by default. Even though seldiora hasn't given any real rebuttal to my objections, I will still respond to his round 2 argument.
*sighs*
Rebuttal:
I.Definitions of Key Terms
seldiora said that I didn't give a good enough definition, so, here it goes:
Kalam Cosmological Argument:
An argument for the existence of a God with the following premises:
P1 Everything that has a beginning has a cause
P2 The universe has a beginning
C1 The universe has a cause
C2 The cause of the universe is God [1]
There is a wider conservation to the Kalam, however, until I get seldiora on track, that won't be needed. It's important to note that I have a definition for the KCA is my opening, but, seldiora probably just ignored it
*Sighs again*
II.Other Definitions
I will ask seldiora to give any other words he wants definitions for, so he can finally get to debating my objections
III.Rap vs Rape
Again, Grice's Razor applies, you must look at the context; the ‘literal’ version of what is being said shouldn’t be taken in isolation. Again, context is king. Your opponent might have said "rap", but in the context of the debate, he/she meant "rape". It's important to note that this has nothing to do with our debate, but seldiora brought it up anyway.
Conclusion:
seldiora's complaint that I didn't provide adequate definitions for the debate should no longer stall him from responding to my objections.
Since he has not responded to my first round, nor my second round arguments, I extend those to this round.
Sources:
[1]
https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/kalam-argument.html

because Grize's razor did not apply to my debate about how Orogami is the best debater, despite being nonexistent and implying Oromagi, the same arguments apply here. Due to standard of debating and voting, I win this debate unless pro can prove some cosmetologically argument

I am speaking of this debate: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2212-orogami-is-the-best-active-debater-on-debateart

Since debaters should be held to the same standard and not even Bearman accepted Griz's razor for Orogami vs Oromagi, the same applies to this debate. Even though only Oromagi could be considered a debater and Orogami doesn't even exist. As such, I should win.

extend