The Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of a Personal Creator

My opponent answers a "no" for my question, which in turn leads to my argument overall.P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.My opponent accuses me of taking an abstract notion of causality and existence and reducing them. However, it isn't what I've done. It's what the argument requires. Unless my opponent would essentially like to concede that the universe's beginning was simply another rearrangement, he cannot conflate the two qualitatively different forms of causes and beginnings. However, he has in fact committed the very fallacy of equivocation in attempting just that. He agrees the laptop being assembled and manufactured is a beginning of its existence. Strictly speaking, this isn't quite correct. Like many things including our own existence it's not as clear as my opponent would like to make; exactly at what point do the parts become a car? To make such a case is to brashly assume its ontological status as some thing in and of itself when it's more accurately pointed out that a laptop is in fact a label given to the arrangement, with its functions arising FROM the configuration. In short, technically YES the laptop "always" existed, just not as a laptop. This provides no quandary since I can both posit that the laptop exists, and that its existence did not "begin" in a true sense that the KCA requires. It's worth re-stating and emphasising that the Kalam Cosmological Argument by definition is limited to a very specific type of causation or "beginning"- that of a creation ex nihilo. As I said, unless my opponent would like to argue that the universe beginning to exist is, like a laptop being manufactured, simply pre-existing materia rearranging to form a new configuration (which would effectively be concession of defeat since that's not what the Opening Statement has outlined as being "universe"), my opponent must provide evidence of a creation ex nihilo- something he had previously said was not evidenced! It's also worth noting that in fact in quantum physics the first premise is also attacked, via quantum fluctuation. It demonstrates the quantum nucleation from a quantum vacuum without cause. The closest thing to a cause one could possibly point to is in fact its own nature- the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty. P2. The universe began to existMy opponent claims that he has shown that an actual infinite is impossible in the real world because he showed that adding to it does not change it, since it's already infinite. But that only highlights the nature of infinity mathematically, not refuting it or its application to the real world. In short, his argument boils down to "because it does not behave like a finite number, it is impossible" and thereby making the very claim he needs to prove. He attempts to point out the absurdity of time being infinite by claiming that "all events have occurred, yet no events have occurred, yet all events have yet to occur, yt no events have yet ot occur". What he hasn't pointed out is that this supposedly contradictory nature of infinity is the backbone of mathematics. Take integers. We have an actual infinite set of all integers, and another set of only even integers. If my opponent were to be correct, this would be impossible since one is clearly half of the other. If we half that, and have every other even integer, we would still have an actual infinite set. It shows the peculiar nature of infinity and that it is unquantifiable. But does that make it therefore impossible? Would this be a problem for my objection to the argument? No, in both ways. Firstly, my main argument was that effectively yes, time did begin. But that does not mean that the universe had a beginning of existence. Rather, spacetime is a product of the universe- its arrangement is the spacetime. This is the basis for Vilenkin's 1982 paper "CREATION OF UNIVERSES FROM NOTHING" (note, this "nothing" is like the "nothing" of the aforementioned quantum fluctation- quantum vacuum rather than a literal nothing) as well as for the Hartle-Hawking paper and hosts of other current cosmology papers dealing with the very subject. It makes sense given the knowledge that the arrow of time is directed by entropy (if time were some metaphysical principle then how could this be?) and by the general theory of relativity and how objects affect its flow. My opponent has agreed that time is not necessary for the existence of something, and in this way he has effectively agreed this is at the very least plausible given the physicist understanding of time, and it being a product of the universe than being the other way around. The universe itself need not experience a passage of it a any point prior to the development of spacetime. So what caused time, then? The aforementioned paper by Vilenkin states that: "A plausible answer has emerged quite recently [3,4,6]. At some temperature TO the false vacuum becomes unstable due to thermal [2-4] or gravitational [6,7] effects. The Higgs field ~b starts rolling down the effective potential towards the absolute minimum, q~ = a. The Coleman-Weinberg potential is very flat for small values of ~(~ ~ o), and the typical rollover time, r, can be much greater than the expansion time, H -1. Until q~ becomes of the order a, exponential expansion continues, and the scale of the Ulfiverse grows by a factor ~exp (Hr) >>> 1. To solve the homogeneity and flatness problems we need exp(Hr) 2 1028 [1]. Most of this growth takes place after the destabilization of the false vacuum. When becomes ~o, the vacuum energy thermalizes, and the universe enters a radiation-dominated period. The baryon number can be generated during the thermalization or shortly afterwards. Density fluctuations can be generated by vacuum strings produced at a later phase transition" [1]In other words, at the point of pre-planck, quantum mechanics take over due to its unstable, compressed state. This leads to the formation of a "false vacuum" that in turn enables the quantum nucleation to occur, providing the "spark" that sets off the expansion to form spacetime. That was one way- what's the other?3. The universe has a cause of existenceLet's say we take my opponent's understanding of time as being necessary for change. He states that, "if the hot dense state was timeless, then how could it have given rise to time without changing state, then time must have existed alongside the hot dense state."The problem is that it is easily as much an Achilles heel for him as for me given such a definition of time: how could the creator have created the universe, since the being must've necessarily been timeless since it gave rise to time- an action which in fact is change? The mind is a thinking mind, and it forms wills. My opponent explicitly stated in his first reply that "a personal agent implies an agent with a will. It is logically possible for an eternal personal agent to freely choose to create temporal effects without necessitating change in its own properties". But isn't the formaton of a will a change in itself? Otherwise, the timeless mind must at best always have the will that the universe is to be created. In short, by "willing", the universe has no beginning. It is both created and not created since to be created it must have a beginning. However, it cannot have a beginning since that implies that the creator changed its properties from "not having will to create universe" to "will to create universe"- and thus god must necessarily be temporal. In short, the KCA ends with a conclusion that effectively refutes itself at every turn.SOURCE:[1]http://www.mukto-mona.com... Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.