An atheist must believe "something comes from nothing."

My opponent first provides us with the other definition. I quote my opponent here: "1 : not any thing : no thing 2 : no part As can be seen, definition. 2 is the more appropriate for this debate. English words frequently have multiple meanings/uses." WHAT? As can be seen? How is that? Let's just plug definition 2 into the resolution, and see if it even makes a small morsel of sense. An atheist must believe "something comes from no part." "As can be seen," this makes absolutely no sense. Note that my opponent gives no REASON why his definition is superior, besides "as can be seen." Let us consider: 1> "No part" does not mean "A negative state of existence", "Nothingness", or "the state of there being nothing." No matter how you slice it. 2> My definition makes sense not only literally, but colloquially. Suppose a person believes the universe was uncaused. Suppose this person is asked "What did the universe come from?". Consider he gives the response, "Nothing". This is a truthful response. 3> My definition appears first, and it makes sense in this context. Therefore, it should be used. So with that, the definition issue should be dealt with. I said: "The fact that it is not caused indeed does show that it does not come from anything." My opponent said: "Anything is not the same as nothing. Its use is disingenuous." However, let us look at the definition. "NOT ANYTHING" If something did NOT come from ANYTHING then it came from NOTHING. Or if you prefer, it came from "NO THING", which is the same definition [definition 1 from Webster]. Any way you slice it, not having a cause does indeed mean coming from no thing. My opponent uses this twice as a rebuttal. Did he not see that "Not anything" was a definition of "Nothing"? It's the first one listed, for god's sake! My points still stand. Not coming from anything is the same as coming from not anything. I just rearranged the words to make it sound better [there's hardly anywhere where the words "not anything" would go well right next to each other]. My opponent says: "A self causing universe removes the need of a causal chain therefore "come from" becomes irrelevant; just as relativity and quantum theory remove "nothing" and at times "come from" as well." If the concept of 'coming from something' is destroyed, then there is nothing to come from. Just as the concept of my own telepathic powers is meaningless right now, yet I am still telepathically communicating nothing. [Since this literally only means I am not telepathically communicating anything]. So let's pretend causation is out of the picture. Things now don't require causes. First, let us realize there is still some point where this causal chain breaks - namely, the point where causality becomes meaningless. The "first cause" in this case would be the first thing that was not itself caused. As I have shown time and time again, anything without a cause automatically 'comes from nothing,' since it does not come from anything [else it would have a cause]. Even so, once causality is removed, my job is infinitely easier. Now, it is not just the first cause that comes from nothing, but also any outliers that are simply not part of any sequence of events. Since they didn't come from anything, they came from nothing. "Nothing" does not mean "NOTHINGNESS" [which is the state of nothing existing]. My opponent then provides a link. He wants me to read it. But why? I'm not here to read other people's theories. If you want me to respond to something, type it yourself. Links are meant as REFERENCES, not as argumentation. You have to do the arguing. Ironically, my opponent closes with this: "There really is nothing left to argue." Indeed. There is not anything left to argue. There is no thing left to argue. I think I've made my point.