The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[Neo-Scholastic]

Therefore:
Being A always exists prior (or has the potential to change into) to Being B or Non-Being but the same cannot be said for Non-Being?

In other words, Being A always exists as an antecedent, while Non-Being never does?

(To practically restate Rhythm's aforementioned tautology).

The starting point for the argument is within a reality that already has being. The idea that it could change into non-being would also include never having been in the first place. If the situations were indeed the reverse, that non-being was logically prior to being, then there would not be anything capable of change in the first place.