Kalam argument is sound

Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a causeSomething can not come from nothingSomething can not come from nothing has been one of the first principles of metaphysics for centuries although it did go under the name of ex nihilo, nihil fit in the earlier days of philosophy. It has been argumentatively confirmed by nearly all philosophers from Descartes who proved a variant of this which he called "Nothing comes from nothing" [1] and even the most staunch atheist of all philosophers like David Hume have confirmed this principle in his quote: "But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that that anything might arise without a cause: I only maintain'd, that our Certainty of the Falsehood of that Proposition proceeded neither from Intuition nor Demonstration; but from another Source." [2] It is fairly obvious why this principle has been defended by atheists and theists alike since to deny this principle would be to give up exploring serious metaphysics and would be worse than magic. Whoever denies this principle is frankly no better than 3-year-olds who think that rabbits do pop into existence from the inside of the magician's hat. Principle of sufficient reasonR03;There are two other metaphysical principles that directly support the first premise namely the metaphysical principle of causation [3]and the principle of sufficient reason. I have decided to place the two together since they argue for the same thing. I have found that the principle of sufficient reason could be argued for more concisely and more interestingly. The principle of sufficient reason is a metaphysical principle that stipulates that everything must have a reason or cause. [4] The powerful element behind this principle is that atheists can not rationally deny it because if they deny it, they would have to propose some sort of reason of why they think that the principle is false which is exactly what the Principle of sufficient reasoning proposes so it would be the height of irrationality to deny the PSR yet admit that the PSR is true and use it in order to argue against the PSR. Such an action would be to assume that the PSR is true (when providing some reason why they think something, like the PSR, is false) and at the same time false (if the atheists deny the PSR) which violates the law of non-contradiction. The circle would look something like this. [5]Reductio ad absurdum Let's assume that the proposition "Whatever begins to exist has a cause" is wrong and that "Whatever begins to exist does not have a cause" is true and that things can just begin to exist uncaused. We can already see the absurdity here because things do not just pop into existence without a cause. If the negation of the first premise was true and that things can pop into existence without a cause then why do not bikes, cars, houses, tables, paper or humans pop into existence from non-existence uncaused as we speak? Nowhere does this happen. Bikes, cars and humans do not pop into being from non-existence uncaused in private or in public.Therefore it should be rather obvious that denying the first premise would lead to absurdities that we do not observe and since the negation of the first premise is certainly false then by the law of the excluded middle, the first premise must be true.Some skeptics will counter this by saying that in quantum mechanics things do begin to exist uncaused as Lawrence Krauss argues but the problem is that the two examples that the skeptics provide not only do they have some sort of cause but they have at least 2 out 4 causes that Aristotle proposed. The first example would be radioactive decay but that event has both a material cause (atom) and an efficient cause (unstable nuclei). [6]The second example, namely, virtual particles have a material cause (Qunatum vacuum energy or zero-point energy) and an efficient cause (Quantum vacuum fluctuations). [7]Also, another possible objection from skeptics would be that causality does not apply outside the universe but that would the taxicab fallacy. [8] Moreover, Causation is a metaphysical principle that governs all of reality whether natural or supernatural, not just a physical principle like gravity. [3]Premise 2: The universe began to existBy began to exist, I mean that the universe has a finite past. First let's make a distinction between potential infinites and actual infinites. Potential infinites are infinites that are forever approached but never achieved like counting numbers endlessly (you will never reach infinity, but you are approcahing it forevermore). An actual infinite is a set that is complete and actually has an infinite members right now as we speak. If the universe did not begin to exist, then the past would be infinite ... Actually infinite for that matter because before let's say November 5th, an actual infinite number of past-moments would have elapsed right now as we speak.Actual infinites can not be formed by successive additionsP1) An actual infinite can not be formed by successive additionP2) The past was formed by successive addition Conclusion (1 and 2): The past can not be actually infinitePremise 1 is true because there are no two finite numbers that you can add together and reach an infinite number. The sum of any two finite numbers is always another finite number. Imagine a bucket, no matter how many grains of sand you keep successively adding, the number of sand grains in the bucket will always be finite. However, if my opponent proposes that if you keep going froever then the grains of sands will form an infinite, my reponse would be that the grains of sands in the bucket would be a potential infinite that is forever approaching the ideal of an infinite number of sand grains but never actually forms an infinite set thus it would still be not completely and actually infinite as we speak but would be merely approaching infinity and would be still finite.Premise 2 is true because no matter what ontology of time you adopt, time is formed by successive additions of events and moments that have elapsed one after the other. The past would be formed by the successive addition of past events overtime.Actual infinites can not be traversedIf the past is infinite then prior to let's say "Nov. 5th", there was an infinite past to traverse in order to get to today. However, this would mean that it took an infinite amount of time to get to today. But that would mean that it would take the universe literally forever to reach today and that it would never reach today due to being stuck in infinity. Suppose a train had to run thorugh a railway of infinite length before it can reach its destination. The train would literally be stuck in infinity and would never reach its destination since he is "stuck" in eternity. Now a second analogy might be given by imagining telling somebody that you will have to jump in a pot of inifnite length in order to reach the bottom. Would you ever reach the bottom? No. You would be stuck in infinity trying to get there and would never get there. But we did get to today. Thus, the past is infinite and is finite.Scythe revengeAlexander Pruss formed a thought experiement to disprove an infinite past. Suppose that time had no beginning and that during each hour in the past, a grim reaper (GR) was created and set to kill you at 12pm + 1/n minutes, where 'n' is the number of the reaper.. If you are alive when a GR goes off, it will kill you instantly, but if you are already dead, it will do nothing. With this set up, there is no first GR because each GR has a GR before it. It follows that no GR can kill you because a GR would have done so first, yet you can't survive a moment past noon because GR1 would have killed you no matter what. If the past is beginningless, then the GR scenario would be possible, but since it's not possible, the past must have a beginning.Possible objection: Zeno's paradox vs traversing an infiniteThe problem with proposing Zeno's paradox as a counterargument to traversing an infinite is the fact that it is setting up apples and oranges scenario where zeno's paradox deals with the finite and the argument deals with the infinite.Take the distance between the two walls of my room which is two meters. They can be divided into 2 (1 meters) then the second one meter can be divided into 2 half meters then the second half meter can be divided into 2 quarters and so on. [9] Now suppose, I was to cross the distance between the walls of my room, did I just traverse an infinite? Of course not. I have just traversed 2 meters (My room is not actually two meters for the readers). All Zeno's paradox shows is that you can divide a finite into a potentially infinite amount of times. Here is another example, suppose I take an apple and divide it the way I divided my room and then I proceed to eat the apple, did I just eat an infinite apple? Of course not. The problem with Zeno's paradox is that it results in a finite number of 2 [10] while if the past is infinite, it would not be finite but would be infinite by definition. Conclusion: Since the cause of the beginning of the nature and the universe can not also be the nature and the universe since that would be circular reasoning and would be no better from "My mother gave birth to herself", the cause of the beginning of the nature and the universe must be independent of them and outside of them meaning it would be supernatural.Since the cause is indepnedent of the universe and its dimensions, meaning it would be spaceless and timeless and immaterial and non-physical.There are only two types of supernatural (independent of nature), timeless, spaceless and immaterial causes which would be either a mind or an abstract object but since abstract objects like the number 7 do not cause anything then the cause must by abductive reasoning be a mind.So in conclusion, the cause of the beginning of the universe is a supernatural, speaceless, timeless, immaterial and non-physical mind.