The Kalam Cosmological argument is sound evidence of a creator

I unexpectedly found myself at another city than the one I reside in, for a week, and as a result of this, I was not able to post my previous round, and thus apologise to my opponent. However, I shall still make a quick post, outlining my criticisms to Pro's justifications of the soundness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I will be focussing on Pro's justifications of Premise 1 showing that because they do not establish the soundness of the Premise, the overall argument has not been shown to be sound, which, as per the burden-of-proof imposed upon me, justifies a vote on Con's side. --Pro's Argument--In his attempt to justify (P1), Pro provides two arguments: (a) The fact that we don't see things "popping into existence", ie. beginning to exist without a cause, provides a good reason why things cannot begin to exist without a cause. (b) The first law of thermodynamics is in contradiction to the concept that something can begin to exist without a cause. Regarding (a), Pro makes the unjustified assumption that because we accept the statement that it is metaphysically possible that something can begin to exist without a cause, we ought to see things beginning to begin to exist. For this reason alone, Pro's argument is unsound. However, let's go further. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that it ought not to be a suprise that we don't see things beginning to exist without a cause, even if we accept the notion that it is possible for something to begin to exist without a cause. This is because everything the we see beginning to exist, begins to exist under the context of a world governed by physical law, and is subject to space-time; ie. things beginning to exist are not beginning to exist from nothing. However, in the Kalam, we are talking about the universe coming into existence without a cause - where physical law and space-time is absent - ; from nothing. Once this distinction is made, it ought not be a suprise that we don't see anything come into existence without a cause.Regarding (b), Pro never elaborates on how the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy)... power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing, (https://chemistry.osu.edu...)is in contradiction with the concept with the concept that things can begin to exist without a cause. As a matter of fact, Pro only resorts to rhetorical swooshes, asking me whether I believed that energy can begin to exist without a cause. I'm not sure why Pro is specifically talking about energy beginning to exist without a cause, rather the general question of things beginning to exist without a cause. In addition, Pro overlooks the fact that prior to the universe beginning to exist, there does not, in any case, exist physical law, such as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, the question of whether the universe began to exist without a cause, cannot be mishmashed with the 1st Law. --Conclusion--Because Pro's justifications for (P1) do not succeed, the resolution has been negated.