The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

It's unfortunate that the time constraints provided by the site has left my opponent unable to provide his response to his satisfaction, and I hope this will not be a trend in this debate since I do think he has interesting points to raise regarding the topic at hand.Now:Premise 1:Whatever begins to exist has a cause.My opponent seems to have misunderstood the crux of the argument with regards to my objections to the first premise, in that my point was that it makes assertions which are not supported by either logic or evidence. Just as we do not see anything coming from nothing uncaused, we have not seen anything truly begin to exist in a creation sense that the argument requires it be defined. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that we have not seen anything being caused to exist outside of time. In fact, it's worth pointing out that causality itself is rooted IN time, and that in physics atemporal causality holds no meaning. Premise 2: The universe began to existA: Philosophical Argument against Actual Infinity:My opponent attempts to address my objection to the Hilbert Hotel Paradox in pointing out rightly that I argued that infinite numbers do not behave like finite numbers. I however have a question for him. It is well known that actual infinity is often used in mathematics and in physics to describe a certain mathematical feature or a feature of reality. What's also known and accepted is that this is done despite the fact that because it doesn't function like a finite number it leads to what are seeingly contradictions. Take all integers- there would be an actual infinity of "all integers" stretching both to the negatives and to the positives. If we were to take half of that- say only the negative integers, it would still be infinity. This is the kind of contradiction that my opponent refers to with regards to infinity. If we were to take infinity, and half of that infinity, shouldn't the latter be of lesser quantity? But then again, this only draws further emphasis on my argument that infinity does not function like a finite number. Despite this seeming contradiction mathematics works perfectly fine with infinity and it simply points to the uniqueness of actual infinity. The scientific case I believe, however, shows this is further rendered irrelevant. B. Scientific Argument for the beginning of the universe It seems my opponent is against the Big Bang theory, which puzzles me since it had been touted for many years as an evidence of the universe beginning. He further cites the new example of faster-than-light neutrinos which, though the results weren't confirmed to the point of it being established, is certainly interesting. However, this new finding is at best controversial. While I make no claim to its accuracy it is worth noting that because it is not yet established it cannot yet be used as a support for the critique of the big bang or of the general theory of relativity. My opponent is right to point out though, that there are problems with the standard theory of big bang. The problem is that it is incomplete due to the general theory of relativity breaking down at quantum levels. Given the controversial status of neutrinos, for the argument I will continue to refer to the Big Bang. Furthermore, this "beginning of the universe" does not meet the criteria of creation as my opening statements have pointed out that "the creation of the universe does not simply denote what arises from a cosmic expansion, but an actual creation of its materia- energy." Thus far, no science has shown this had ever taken place.