The Kalam Cosmological argument for God can be logically interpreted as false

The Kalam Cosmological Argument in a nutshell:P1: Every human that begins to exists was born from a womanP2: The School Board began to existP3: The School Board was born form a womanThe above is obviously fallacious, but just as much as the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Why? Because the sum of the whole is not the same as the individual parts. Basically, what goes on inside the universe (causes AKA individual parts) does not necessarily apply logically to the universeas a whole.Continuing my refutation of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentAlso lets say we grant the Premise 2 that the universe began to exist, and lets say I'm wrong about virtual particles beginning to exist uncaused. All this would mean is that the only thing we have an example of that "began to exist" would be the universe itself due to the fact that I already demonstrated how our observations aren't of things beginning to exist, but they are of pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged after the universe "began to exist". So if we reform the cosmological argument more accurately, we get something like this:P1: Everything that begins to exist The Universe, has a causeP2: The universe had a beginningP3: The universe had a causeBasically when the conslustion and one of the premises for it are basically the same, we call that circular reasoning and the person pushing the KCA would be commiting the fallacy known as "begging the question".Theists are also asserting that two different types of beings exist:1) Beings that never begin2) Beings that begin According to Theists, the only potential being who can never begin is God.Basically, the Kalam Cosmological Argument can be re-written as: P1: Everything that is not God has a causeP2: The universe is not GodP3: The universe had a causeThe only way a theist could refute my contention is by claiming that the reason the external cause does not have a beginning, is because time only exists internally within the universe. Basically what the theist would be claiming is that time exists within the set God created (the universe), and since God isn't within time, then a beginnings (a point in time) would have no meaning to God's existence. However, if we use that logic, then the singularity couldn't have a beginning because because the singularity didn't exist within time, it contained time. Basically, if things that don't exist within time don't need a beginning, then the singularity didn't need a beginningbecause it didn't exist within time (if we accept the logic of why God doesn't need a beginning).Also once more, the Kalam Cosmlogical Argument assumes a cause is possible outside of time when all avaible evidence shows that causes seem to be synonymous with spacetime. Lets assume that causation is possible outside of our known version of time, this would just be as much of a point for M-Theory as it would be for a supernatural God creation argument for the beginning of the universe (even though both aren'tbacked up by any observable evidence).If The Kalam Cosmological Argument's purpose is to logically prove a supernatural personal creator of the universe in a form that portrays to be absolute logic, then it is false no matter how many angles you take it on from. Especially considering that the argument is a non-sequitor fallacy (even if you grant Premises 1 - 3, Premise 4 does not logically follow). Why?Because the first and third premises of the KCA can be easily torn down (not even the second is backed up), however even if they stood, this would still be just as much an argument for many Non-God theories about a hypothetical cause of the universe as it would be an argument for God. Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument is trying to say that God is the only option, then the KCA fails on all accounts.