The Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)

You can't get something from nothing...........or can you ? Pro says "KCA 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. This should be a given. Something can not be made by nothing." KCA plays by two different rules, rules that apply within the universe "physics" and rules that apply outside of the universe "metaphysics". Now, I won't challenge that you can't get something from nothing within the universe, but why should we accept that as a rule that applies outside of the universe ? After all they have different rules outside of the universe that allow for things to exist that can't possibility happen or exist in the universe such as ..... 1) Something existing without a cause (God) 2) Creating energy where there is no pre existent energy (Creation ex nihilo) 3) A mind without a brain (God) 4) Not subject to physical laws (God) So, if KCA can have different rules outside of the universe that allow for things too happen that can't happen in the universe so can we. Outside of the universe it is possible to get something from nothing. If Pro thinks outside of the universe its not possible to get something from nothing then maybe Pro can tell us why. The shrinking Universe means the universe began to exist ? Pro made the argument that the more you go back in time the smaller the universe becomes. Maybe I wasn't clear enough before, but I was asking why Pro regards a shrinking universe means that the universe began to exist. As pro says "If it has a size then it exists." Half of something is always something, if the universe is always shrinking then there was no point where it did not exist. The shrinking universe argument....... 1) The more back in time you go, the smaller universe was (Claimed by Pro) 2) An ever decreasing universe is still an existent universe 3) Therefore the Universe did not begin to exist Potential infinities vs Actual infinities Although pro rejects a beginning-less actual infinite universe, Why can't the universe be a beginning-less potential infinite universe ? Is time actually real or just a concept in our heads ? Pro says "Time is, indeed, real and does exist, as a system of measure. It is just as real as our systems of measuring length, weight, etc. Just as those systems of measure were worked out by humans, so was the system of time and, as such, did not always exist." Time as a system of measure is just a bunch of concepts WE made up. If we created them, then we can uncreate them. This explanation of time is not consistent with time being objectively real. Pro says "We could take all measurement of time, and all words that relate to our measurement of time, out of our language, and the universe would continue to exist. For that reason, I don't think we can make the logical jump, from the measurement of time not existing, to that causing the universe not to exist, as con implies." Funny, I don't think we can assert that the universe began to exist just because we created the concept of time. What does it mean too say that something began to exist ? Pro once again denies the objective reality of time. If time is not objectively real, then temporal events are not objectively real, and the claim that the universe began to exist is a temporal event. As such the universe did not begin to exist (not in the real objective sense anway) I look forward to Pros reply.