God can't be proved by this universe

My Opponent's ArgumentMy opponent's argument is essentially a refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA). However, my opponent has made several mistakes in his presentation of this argument. The argument flows thusly:1) Everything that began to exist has a cause2) The universe began to exist3) Therefore the universe has a cause4) If the universe has a cause, then that cause is God5) Therefore God exists [A]My opponent fails to include the fact that only things that began to exist have a cause, which allows for things that did not begin to exist to be free of cause. This is important as all mainline monotheistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) all adhere to an eternal God who exists outside of the space time continum and has no beginning or end. Tabula RasaMy opponent then argues that "intelligence, as proved by everyday experiences and all human observations and everything ever existed, is nurtured through constant practice of imitation of something already existed. " My opponent is essentially arguing against a priori knowledge and is arguing for the so-called Tabula Rasa (blank slate) philosophical school of epistemology proposed by Aristotle, but made famous during the elightenment era, particularly by John Locke. [B]A Priori KnowledgeThere are competing epistemological theories that hold to an a priori [C] model of knowledge. In this model, proposed initially by Plato (or possibly Socrates), theorizes that some ideas and concepts are innate to human beings, and do not need to be learned. Plato demonstrates this type of knowledge in the work known as the Meno. [D] In this work, Plato uses the example of a slave boy who has never been taught mathematics. Plato draws a square on the ground and asks the slave boy how he would make a square that is twice as big. At first the slave draws three squares that share three sides of the original square. However, he quickly recognizes that this is actually 4x as large as the original square. After some time, the boy intuits that if he cuts each of the four squares in half via a bisecting line, that the result is now four triangles that form a square, that is exactly 2x larger than the original. This was done without any knowledge of mathematics, or without having seen this action peformed before. Furthermore, my opponent is contradicted by basic biological science. In the simple fact is that animals and humans engage in all sorts of activities that are not learned. These actions are called instincts. In fact, expiriments have been conducted with birds that show that when raised in isolation from other birds and when released after the age which its siblings were flying, it was able to fly perfectly. It did not have to learn to fly, it was an innate knowledge that simply needed proper physical development to exercise. [D] For example, an infant will fear a snarling dog without having been taught to and without having seen it modeled. However, present an infant with the same dog that approaches quietly and they likely will not fear this animal. This is a discernment that the infant makes, and unless my opponent can show that this is not some level of intelligence his argument fails. My opponent must prove that tabula rasa is the correct epistemological approach in order for this argument to function. At this point, he has not done so. Begging the QuestionMy opponent has also committed the fallacy of begging the quesiton, or circular reasoning. Beyond assuming a tabula rasa, my opponent also assumes several other unproven assertions. He assumes that God is intelligent. Now, I am not arguing that God is not intelligent in the way that we define it. Once again in all major monotheistic religions, God is assumed to be omniscient which means that he posesses all knowledge. This means that even if prior knowledge of something was required in order to create, he always had that knowledge. Unless my opponent can prove that A) Humans are bound by a tabula rasa epistemology, B) that God shares that same epistemological limitation, and C) that God's omniscience cannot include theoretical knowledge of this universe or how to create it, my opponent's argument does not hold water. I would like to thank my opponent for his contribution, and thank the reader for their participation in this debate. [A] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[B] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[C] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[D] Campbell and Reece, Biology 6th ed. - Quoted from . http://en.wikipedia.org...