The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

In my last round, I confused Pro and Con, I kept referring to my opponent as the Con, when I should of said Pro. Never the less the arguments are still the same. Pro says "Furthermore, my opponent completely ignored my argument of the universe expanding and how it is not as big now as it will be in a few minutes" Yeah I saw it, but what was the argument ? the universe is expanding therefore...............? Pro says "I am not claiming God is anything. That can not be proven and is not the objective of this debate" The Kalam argument and its additions is used as an argument for the existence of God as defined in round 1. The objective of the debate is me attacking the Kalam and its additions and you defending it. I would remind Pro that I reworded premise 2 too "Premise 2) If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist." I ask Pro to refer their objection to this, cause I don't want to argue over semantics, and I believe this re wording of premise 2 is less open to attack on the grounds of semantics. Pro says "State- the way something is with respect to its main attributes", at this point I would like to point out the difference between something having attributes, and a description of something. For example if I say that Pro didn't exist before he was born, I am not saying that he had attributes of non existence, but rather its a description of reality where and when he did not exist. Which leads me to my next point, what do we mean by existence and reality. By existence we mean that which exists. But also notice that if something exists, it means it does not not exist (yes double negative), and if something does not not exist, then it does exist. So by referring to existence you are also referring to non existence. Too exist is contradictory to not existing Too not exist is contradictory to existing Premise 2) If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist. 1) Something which "begins" to exist, is a transition of somethings non existence to existence 2) Premise If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist. 3) There fore the two different states of reality (non existence to existence) have temporal relations. (That is to say somethings non existence state is before its existence) In support, of this argument, I would like to make some points 1) Something that begins to exist can't exist before it exists (this should be self evident) 2) Something that begins to exist can't have always existed. 3) Therefore something that begins to exist, did not exist in the past. Once this is accepted and the claim that the begining of the universe was the first moment of time 4) There was no "before" the universe 5) There fore the universe non existence has never been 6) There fore The universe has not gone from a transition from a state of non existence to a state of existence 7) Therefore the universe did not begin to exist. 1) Would you agree that the you have not always existed ? 2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ? 3) Would you agree that state of reality where you did not exist, preceded its existence ? Pro says "God IS the beginning. He is everything and nothing" Everything is the total of that which exists, nothing is the absence of existence. Something can't exist and be absent of existence. Or to put in more simply, this claim makes no sense. Also claiming God is the beginning contradicts God as being "beginningless". I look forwards to Pros response.