The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

To begin with, I must first ask my opponent: Is time necessary for existence? This will come into play later on. P1: whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. My opponent rightly points out that we have no evidence of something being caused by nothing and he further states that it is absurd. After all, how can "nothing", which has no potentialities cause something to exist? But that's not the only problem there is with the use of "causation" by the argument. Not only do we have no evidence to posit a causation BY nothing, neither do we have evidence of one FROM nothing. In short, we have no evidence of any beginning whatsoever as defined by the argument itself- that is, a creation ex nihilo. Therefore, to proceed to the second premise from this where such an important distinction that needs to be made has not would therefore be committing the fallacy of equivocation. What we do have evidence for as far as beginnings and causations go, however, is a transformative cause. For example, you and I "began to exist" when we were born. But were we created? From nothing? No, and because of this we do not match the requisite nuances of the definition of the first premise and hence cannot be used to support the argument. That's not to say the 2nd premise is problem-free either. P2: The universe began to exist. My opponent firstly argues the impossibility of an actual infinite. He does not show how this is, however. It is true that infinity is unquantifiable, but this is not the same as being impossible. Mathematics and physics uses such "impossible" infinity often in their lines of works. Given the current understanding of nature of spacetime, this isn't even particularly relevant, either. Many foremost well known current pre-planck cosmological theories rest upon the notion that essentially, the spacetime is an arrangement of the universe (read: its constituents, ie energy) itself. In short, in any theories that posit the beginning thereof the universe as the arrangement of spacetime by Vilenkin's paper on Quantum Nucleation of the Universe in fact posit that time arose from the Initial Energy Density- aka, the universe. But what of the second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't this posit that if the universe was exanding eternally in the past, we'd have reached heat death right now? Well who says we were expanding from then? It's what Big Bang, the cosmic expansion of the universe, itself solves, since it posits the universe to have only been expanding a finite time ago. To drive the nail to the coffin, one must not forget the FIRST law of thermodynamics- that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So what does that leave us? Since we have no evidence nor reason to posit anything was created, and we definitely do not have evidence of the universe having or needing a beginning, how would it therefore follow that there was a creator? The Nature of the Creator:My opponent commits the fallacy of special pleading in claiming the nature of the creator to be intelligent and personal- a mind. Does my opponent have evidence of timeless mind? Can a mind even exist outside of a brain?