That is already assuming the qualities of "nothing", time and that universe began to exist. Seeing as we don't know what actual "nothing" would mean Empty space isn't nothing or how it would act, we assume that nothing can't meta-physically create anything but we actually don't know. It might be that nothing allows things to pop into existence, or that "nothing" can't exist. We also can't really be sure that the universe began to exist, it seems intuitive, but time is a bizarre thing and a quality of space rather than a singular line that we usually think about. Time flows differently at different points in space depending on gravitational pull and speed at which you are traveling. The first mover argument and the Kalam are not good arguments, they are mostly internally consistent, but they operate on a very rigid logic that fails to account the plethora of possibilities that exist. It is quick to deem certain things as absurd when it is simply impossible to know, and our understanding of the concepts it bases its argument on becomes more fuzzy. We have examples of things coming from seemingly next to nothing like quantum fluctuations, but it's really complicated and bizarre.
In short, those arguments don't hold watter to be honest.