Atheism(pro) vs Theism(con)

I thank Con again for a very remarkable remark. I'm going to quote Con and give a response to what Con said.1. Con disagreed with the conclusion that "If God's intention to create the universe is eternal, then the universe must be eternal."Let's assume the opposite is true.God's intention to create the universe is eternal, but the universe began to exist A. Since god exists eternally without beginning or end, his existence must range from -infinity to +infinity.B. At some point along his eternal existence, he decided to act upon his eternal intention to create the Universe so that the Universe begins to exist.C. God went from -infinity to the point where he decided to act upon his intention.Now the assumption leads to a logical contradiction. P1: If god went from -infinity, he'll never reach the point where he acted upon his intention and therefore the Universe never existed.P2: But the Universe exists!C : Therefore If God's intention to create the universe is eternal, then the universe can't begin to exist. If the Universe didn't begin to exist, then it must be eternal.2. "But doesn't God still create an eternal universe in your argument? I don't see how that is possible, but even if that did somehow destroy my argument, it still admits that a God exists. "No. It doesn't admit that a god exists. This is called proof by contradiction.In order to prove statement P is true, one needs to show that the opposite of P leads to a contradiction and that's what I did. In order to validate the statement "God does not exist", I showed that the opposite of that statement ("God exists") leads to a contradiction. So starting with the assumption that "God exists", I made inferences using Con's own logic and arrived at a contradiction. That implies1. Premise 1 of the Kalam argument is flawed.2. God's existence leads to a logical contradiction. 3. "For example, we could just argue that Hitler did nothing wrong since evolution merely gave him a different mind. I mean, I can't see how evolution could possibly provide any objective moral law."I don't see how we have to have an objective morality in order to see that Hitler was wrong. He was wrong because:1. If everyone considered Hitler to be the standard of righteousness, then there would be more Hitler-like leaders (because righteous action is encouraged). 2. If there were more Hitler-like leaders, the word would be divided into different groups that consider themselves to be superior and are willing to invade other countries to attain power.3. If the world was full of different antagonistic parties, they would annihilate each other until they stop consider Hitler-like action to be the standard of righteous or they'll wipe each other off the face of the Earth.Ultimately, you'll always end up with Hitler-like action is wrong or extinction. Moreover, Human has a complex nervous system which enables us to predict future due to past experience. We are rational enough to evaluate which scenario is more beneficial to us.If Hitler was right:"I could be the next target of genocide, persecution, extermination.""I could be considered a sub-human""My country A could be the next target of invasion"It's clearly more beneficial to us if he's wrong than right.4. "Yet if morality evolves over time, then it isn't really objective according to your point of view. For example, if one thing is wrong in the past and then considered right in this age due to evolution, then the standard would have changed. This completely goes against the idea of objective morality."If morality doesn't evolve (get better), then the abolishment of slavery makes no difference according to that POV.