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.)
Point 2. is a weak assumption. "The universe began to exist"
There is zero evidence that there was a beginning, which was proceeded by nothing.
I assume you're referring to the Kalam argument, in which case I agree with you 100%
I forgot to add an explanation.
I have been "debating" this guy on another site over the validity of the Kalam, my position is that the argument holds no scientific water, but he claims it does, I proposed this argument, but he rejected it by saying that I exclude the possibility of God. I don't reject the possibility, I'm just saying that there is no need to postulate a god to explain the origin of the universe.
I do not see this as excluding a god
it only excludes
that god came from
If there is a god
then it would
have to come from some thing
and so on
Unless they are willing to admit that something can come from no thing, in which case you can propose that the universe came from no thing, unless they use a special pleading fallacy.