Another thing. To anyone who says that matter/energy can't exist before a singularity: The only singularities we have ever observed (black holes) have arisen SPECIFICALLY from matter/energy. We have ZERO KNOWLEDGE about singularities forming from anything BUT matter which was, previous to formation of the singularity, just ordinary matter.
So you disagree with Hawking?
No, I UNDERSTAND Hawking--and you don't. I also understand science, and what scientists mean when they write something. I also have good reading comprehension.
And I also understand the most BASIC principles of chemistry and physics, among which is that matter and energy are equivalent. In fact singularities that we KNOW about arise from the collapse of a quantity of matter that is squeezed inside its Schwarszchild radius (although they also accrete MASS AND ENERGY directly--when they happen to enter within its Schwarszchild radius). At an actual singularity, NOBODY can say WHAT it's composed of exactly, because current theory is not yet able to describe the physics of singularities. But they are DESCRIBED in terms of their APPARENT mass, charge, and angular momentum.
You CAN'T take a single sentence from someone's work and claim to understand the totality of their work. And you can't understand science from reading a popular book or two (or a hundred). When Hawking (or any other theoretical physicist) says that "all matter and energy comes from the singularity" he means all the matter/energy in THIS universe comes from the singularity. He simply DOESN'T DISCUSS any other matter or energy that might exist elsewhere (in another dimension, in another universe, etc.). I have a feeling you simply don't understand these concepts. You are definitely not in a position to discuss them.
Would you like some advice? Drop the Kalam argument. You are not in a position to deal with it. Instead, as an "apologist," you should concentrate on:
1) The apparent fine tuning of cosmological constants.
2) Ways to convince others that the jesus story is true and accurate.
THOSE are the only things that have ever brought in new believers to christianity. Even some physicists and philosophers have been turned (mostly to deists) by the fine tuning argument (although, IMO, it seems they've made a leap into fantasy).
The Kalam argument holds VERY LITTLE sway among thinking people as it is, and you lack the ability of WLC to bully his way across its huge gaps and fudges.