Why do you not believe in God?

[CliveStaples]

The argument is circular unless the set "Doesn't begin to exist" has more than a single meaningful entry. Otherwise, NBE is a set with only one subject- a set with a single subject, that subject being a God, is nothing more than a shroud for God.
Basically, the arguement is begging the question if there is a single entry in NBE.

...uh, what?

I'll repeat my objection to your line of thinking:

Let X = { a | a began to exist}
Let X' = { b | b is not in X}
Q(x) = x has a cause

(1) For all x in X, Q(x).
(2) y is in X.
(3) Therefore, Q(y).

You're saying that if the cause of y--let's call it z--is the only element in X', then the argument is guilty of begging the question.

Remember, begging the question is a fallacy wherein a premise is used again as the conclusion. So in order for this argument to beg the question, one of the premises must be "Q(y)", i.e., "The universe has a cause".

So let's suppose that, indeed, z is the only element in X'. But note that X' is never referenced in the KCA. Furthermore, neither premise (1) nor premise (2) include the assumption that the universe has a cause. So the argument can't be begging the question.

---

If God popped out of nothingness, then the universe could have. Ergo, God is useless.

Uh, what? How do you know that if God can do something, then the universe can too?

Morality if began to exist would be a delusion.
Morality is not a delusion.
Therefore morality didn't begin to exist.

This an non-circular argument as well. You can dispute premise 1, premise 2, but you can't accept premise 1 and premise 2, then say premise 3 is not true.

Why would morality be a delusion is if began to exist?
Why isn't morality a delusion?

You're just questioning whether his premises are actually true. That has nothing to do with whether the argument is circular, or valid in general.

Morality is not separate from consciousness.
Therefore if morality is eternal, so is consciousness.

Again, this is an argument that is not circular.

Morality hasn't been proven to be eternal.

Wow, that's completely irrelevant. Not only is it irrelevant to whether the argument is valid--i.e., if the premises are assumed true, the conclusion necessarily follows--but it's actually irrelevant to whether the argument is sound.

Even if morality is proven not to be eternal, it could be that 'morality is not separate from consciousness' and that therefore 'if morality is eternal, so is consciousness'.

Like, I'm not really in London right now. But "London is in England. If I am in London, I am in England" is still a sound argument.