The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

In the previous round I asked Pro 3 simple questions in order to demonstrate that something begins to exist, comes after its non existence. 1) Would you agree that the you have not always existed ? Yes 2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ? Yes 3) Would you agree that this state of reality where you did not exist, preceded its existence ? Yes I look forward to Pros reply. In response to question 2 Pro said "2) No, I would not say that I was in a nonexistent state. Let's look at the sentence structure. "I" am a noun; I'm the object of the statement. "Nonexistent state" is what describes me. How can I be described when I don't exist? I can not. " But notice here they deliberately reworded the question, in order to attack it on semantic grounds, when clearly the question says "2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ? " Even after trying to defeat this concept of non existence before existence, Pro says "You can only say that AFTER it's existence! You can not say it before! Creation must come first! (God created the universe)" Notice Pro talks about something existing AFTER it exists, well why do you talk about After its existence, it seems to me Pro is suggesting that there was a "before", and in this "before" the thing they are referring to did not exist. Even after playing this silly game of refuting me on that basis that we can't say that something is non existent what does Pro then and go say ? Pro says "Time had a point of nonexistent" Pro didn't exist 500 years ago, When Pro began to exist, this came after their non existence (descriptively speaking) any adult can understand this concept. Pro says "5) If everything had a cause of existence, then is it logical to say everything has always existed without cause, without being an omni being? No. " Pro states that everything has a cause, then says, God didn't have a cause, outright contradiction. Pro says "God is the only thing that does not have creation. Everything else had creation. God is the cause of that creation. " No, everything but the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER has creation, if Pro can just make assertions, why can't we all just jump in on the act. See everything but the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER has creation. .. .. .. .. oh that and CHUCK NORRIS. Pro says "1) God existed before the universe 2) Therefore there was a time when the universe did not exist. " This is very problematic for Pro, cause Pro stated that their is no time with God, Pro had said "(God created the universe; time did not exist with God" if there is no time with God, God can't exist "before" anything now can he ? At the start of this debate, my main argument was how the Kalam argument, claims that the universe began to exist and the problem that arise with this claim, I previously said. .. .. .. 1) Something that begins to exist can't exist before it exists (this should be self evident) 2) Something that begins to exist can't have always existed. 3) Therefore something that begins to exist, did not exist in the past. and 1) There was no "before" the universe 2) Therefore there has never being a time where the universe has not existed. 3) There for its impossible for the non existence of the universe to be the state of reality before the existence of the universe 4) Therefore the universe did not begin to exist. The questions at this point is, have I shown good reason to object to the 2nd premise of the kalam argument that states "2)The universe began to exist. " Has my opponent being able to refute the reasons I gave for objecting to the 2nd premise ?