Your first and biggest problem is that you are using mushy words. Being, non-being, eternal, etc., seem to have obvious meanings, but they don't, really. They are loaded with cultural and historical assumptions, many which aren't true of the actual world. They are words invented by humans, based on our limited experience of the world through our limited senses. You can't find out the truth of how the world is constructed by examining words like these, and putting together simple arguments like this. Aristotle tried it. Review his physics sometimes for errors.
Nonetheless, your arguments are full of elementary errors.
3 does not follow. The set of negative integers do not have a "beginning", yet they terminate. I wouldn't pursue this line of reasoning further, however, as terms like "temporal" and "eternal" do not take into account the nature of space-time, which was not known at the time we formed the concepts of these words. Suffice to say, modern physics does not say it is impossible for the universe to have started from nothing.
These are very flawed. It's philosophically possible for an atom to be eternal without macro structures, like a planet, to be eternal. There is no need for eternal particles to create a self-maintaining world. I say philosophically possible, because entrophy tells us eventually, atoms will dissapate if the universe does not collapse.
I could go on, but it all seems to be more of the same kind of word play. There is no serious attempt to figure out the actual properties of the world; there are just assertions based on words and concepts that we invented in our cave man days that we know poorly represent how the universe actually works.
