The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

*Even thou I have recently started another debate on this topic, I have doubts whether my opponent is going to participate in it, there fore I am putting up another debate on the same topic with same arguments. I would like to explore some idea's and arguments against the The Kalam Cosmological Argument, and its addition arguments which result in the conclusion....... "that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being, which is God" I as the Con will be arguing against the Kalam argument and its additions that conclude their is a "God" My opponent as the Pro will argue for and defend the Kalam argument and its additions that concluded their is a "God" The Kalam argument is........... 1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2)The universe began to exist. 3)Therefore, the universe has a cause. My first objection is to the 1st Premise........ 1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause. But what exactly does it mean to "begin" to exist. Lets look at an example such as the universe. If some one claims that the universe "began" to exist, surely what they mean is that a transition of the universe existence has occurred, it went from not existing to existing. Now I think its clear that something comes into existence comes AFTER its non existence. For instance you were born after you did not exist, its impossible that your existed before your non existence. Non existence THEN existence, that's all I am saying. But notice the temporal (time) relations that exist here, the Non existence state of something has a temporal relation (exists before) the existence of that something. so the first part of my argument is 1) Something which "begins" to exist, is a transition of somethings non existence to existence 2) Somethings non existence must be the state before its existence 3) There fore the two different states (non existence to existence) have temporal relations. (That is to say somethings non existence state is before its existence) If it is accepted that time began along with the universe, then the universes could of NOT began to exist, and I will show why If the universe began to exist, then its non existence must of being the case before its existence. But this is impossible if the universe began to exist along with the first moment of time, as their is no "before" the first moment of time, there fore their is no prior state where the universe does not exist. 1) Something which "begins" to exist, is a transition of somethings non existence to existence 2) Somethings non existence must be the state before its existence 3) There fore the two different states (non existence to existence) have temporal relations. (That is to say somethings non existence state is before its existence) 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. To give a more simplified summary version of my argument 1) The universe has existed as long as time has existed 2) Therefore their is no time where the universe has not existed 3) Therefore the universe has always existed 4) Something which has always existed can not "begin" to exist 5) Therefore the universe did not "begin" to exist 6) Something which does not begin to exist and has always existed has no external cause 7) Therefore God did not cause the universe I look forward to Pros response.