The Kalam Argument is a sound argument for the existence of God

This will be very short.Ex Nihilo Nihil FitMy opponent is saying, that ex nihilo nihil fit actually hurts my case if I am trying to demonstrate a cause of the universe from nothing. This is false, because the potential for the universe would exist within God himself, not the "nothing" he created it from. My argument is that if there is non-being (which includes no God), then there would not even "be" potential for the universe to exist. This means, that I am rational for claiming that God could have created the universe out of nothing, but it would be absurd to think this would be possible without a cause.Always Verified and Never falsifiedMy opponent contradicts himself here. He states that new atoms come from old ones with regards to this decay, and that none of the four caused are present. However, if an atom comes from another atom, then the other atom would be a material cause. Thus, it would still have a cause. Regardless, my opponent has just asserted these beginnings are uncaused without justification. This argument from Con should go ignored until he actually supports the idea that they are uncaused. Until then, the causal principle in the context of this debate remains never falsified and always verified.Also, Con has not supported the idea that if not all four causes are present, then causality is not present with regards to a situation (he just presupposes it). An efficient cause is still an efficient cause, whether or not there is a material cause.The Final CauseNow, Con states:"Ironically, my opponent has provided a criticism of his own case. Because the principle of causality is flawed - the principle based off of Aristotelian causality - we simply cannot use it to prove the first premise of the argument!"However, he gave no proof to back up the claim that Aristotelian causality is absolute, or why the principle of causality has to follow his specific rules of causality. Until my opponent does this, his whole case is baseless here. He also claims:"However, I wish to go over two things. Firstly, 'cause' in greek means aiton. We use 'cause' as it is the best translation, however, what we mean by the final cause is "what it is for". For writing on is what a table is for. The final cause of an earthquake is death and destruction ensuing (or the rubbing of the plates being for the beginning of an earthquake)."This is founded on confusion however. The final cause is based on that the thing is made for, not based on what it just so happens to do after it is made. Con basically has to resort to saying that the mountains weren't caused, since they were not made with any purpose. Of course, this is absurd. There is no reason why all four causes must be present in order to call something caused. Infinity Con says:"Imagine the set of all positive integers. The set is firstly infinite""All" positive integers means an actual infinity. Which I already proved is absurd. You cannot have an actual infinity because you can always add one more.Designing the designerWe do not have to use the word "eternal". We can just say the cause has to be timeless because he created time. Asking what caused God is useless, because only things with beginnings have causes, and God cannot have a beginning because he is timeless, and beginnings only have meaning with regards to things that are temporal.Dropped pointsGod causes the universe to begin to exist simultaneously with it actually beginning (causally prior, not temporally prior). This means, the change (cause) would be occurring within time, but while there is no universe, God is timeless and changeless. Also, yes. I only mention things that have material causes. However, if an omnipotent being thought that he wanted to create a universe, and it occurred from nothing, this means he caused the universe to begin. Causation simply refers to giving rise to something. cause/kôz/ Noun: A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. [1] Whether God gave rise to the universe from nothing, or something, makes no difference. He gave rise to it, and thus, we have causality by definition.Also ... The singularity could not have existed forever though, time had its first moment at The Big Bang according to modern cosmology. Thus, it must have had a beginning. "Smoot et al. explains how the matter can internally cause a superexpansion due to how the unfathomably large amount of energy acts, and thus can act without external influence."Does this internal causation adhere to all 4 causes? Sources[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...