Is this argument on equal ground with the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Mine. Premise 1: Nothing that begins to exist can come from no things, Premise 2: The universe came from either something, or no thing, Premise 3: The universe exists, Conclusion: Therefore the universe began to exist out of something. The Kalam. Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, Premise 2: The universe began to exist, Conclusion: The universe has a cause. Definitions: Universe - the totality of all existence, time, space, energy, matter. No thing - absolute absence of existence. (All other definitions are their dictionary definitions, to my knowledge.)