The Kalām Cosmolgical Argument attempts to prove very little.

1. Morality is important, the God question alone is not In a classical story from Buddhism, a man confronts the the Buddha and demands to know whether God exists, saying the Buddhist teachings can only be trusted if the Buddha can answer his question. The famous response from the Buddha was, “If you were shot with a poisoned arrow, would you demand to know who shot it before you removed the arrow?” Life poses challenges of what is moral and what is proper. Those challenges must be met when they occur, and they must be met whether or not God exists. Hence, the Buddhist teaching is to focus upon the resolution of moral issues and not to be concerned with whether or not God exists. If God exists and mandates a moral code, that would be important, but the KCA is so far removed from a moral code as to be irrelevant. The following chain of needed proofs is required to get to a god-given moral code from the KCA: The universe has a first cause. The first cause is a god or gods. The god still exists today. The god is concerned with human affairs. The god is good and has moral authority. The god prescribes a moral code. The god communicates the moral code to humans. Humans are able to recognize the moral code. Humans are able interpret the moral code unambiguously. Thus we know what is moral. Morality isn't the only issue of concern, but if we consider worship or salvation or other religious matters, they all follow the same pattern. Most religions take step 7 as an act of faith; they assume that God exists and has communicated a moral code. Many religions posit that the moral code is revealed in the scripture of their faith, but Jains, Buddhists and Deists believe that the moral code is revealed by applying reason to observation of human nature. Buddhists refuse to consider the god question. Some atheists, naturalists, also derive a moral code from human nature, believing that there is a moral code, but it is not given explicitly. 2. A KCA first cause might be natural A common pattern in the history of religion is for people to attribute unexplained natural events to be the work of deities. Why do volcanoes erupt? Why does it rain or not rain? These natural events were attributed to the work of gods. If the volcano erupts, that was then offered as proof that the volcano god exists and was displeased. If it rains after religious rituals are performed, that was cited as proof that the god was satisfied. If it did not rain then that was proof of a god still displeased. Either outcome confirmed the god. Why were natural events attributed to gods? Because alternate explanations were, at the time, not plausible. They were arguments from incredulity. It must be so because no alternative could be conceived. If the KCA is true, it proves there is a first cause. However, the first cause could be a natural event. Renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking argues that the universe exists of it's own nature. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. … "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." [3. http://www.guardian.co.uk...] How is such a natural event possible? Many people to this day do not understand the causes of volcanoes or rain. Nonetheless, we accept the judgment of scientists who understand the natural processes involved. Hawking believes the mechanism is explained. Physicist Michio Kaku outlines the theory: “... we believe, though we cannot yet prove, that our multiverse of universes is 11-dimensional. So think of this 11-dimensional arena and in this arena there are bubbles, bubbles that float and the skin of the bubble represents an entire universe, so we’re like flies trapped on fly paper. We’re on the skin of a bubble. It’s a three dimensional bubble. The three dimensional bubble is expanding and that is called the Big Bang theory and sometimes these bubbles can bump into each other, sometimes they can split apart and that we think is the Big Bang. So we even have a theory of the Big Bang itself.” [4. http://bigthink.com...] Ah, but what of the origins of the multiverse? It exists outside of time, so it gains immunity from the question of first cause. That's exactly how God gains immunity from being subject to the Kalam argument for first causes. Asking why the multiverse exists is like asking, under the assumption that KCA is true, why God exists. If the KCA proves a god, then it must have also proved a space outside of time for the god to exist. So if the KCA is deemed true, the debate only moves to whether the first cause is natural or supernatural. Because the KCA does not prove the existence of any deity, resolving it favorably does not advance the proof of a god. If the KCA is false, then a god may still exist. God may exist separately from the physical universe, which many religious people have always maintained. So if the KCA is found false, it does not advance a disproof of god in any way other than science explaining things previously explained by deities. 3. The Kalam god is amoral Assume that the KCA is true and further that a god is defined as being the first cause. The only defined property of that god is being an uncaused cause. The god need not care at all about humans or their affairs, the god need not be omnipotent or omniscient or good. The Kalam god need only perform the one task of creating the universe. In fact, after creation of the matter and energy of the universe, the Kalam god may cease to exist. The Kalam god may or may not have the power to cease to exist, but the possibility cannot be excluded. The Kalam need not even be able to reason. Some creatures have no reasoning ability, but accomplish things through instinct. Birds build intricately designed nests solely by instinct. Beavers build dams, a task beyond many people, without high-level reasoning. So the Kalam god might have no function beyond reflexively creating one or more universes. Of course, the Kalam god might have other properties, but arguing that requires evidence beyond Kalam. That starts with Step 2 on my list of needed proofs. Note the KCA began with ancient Greeks and was advanced by Islam and Christianity. It is therefore consistent with a variety of concepts of God, including various requirements for morality and a host of other religious beliefs. KCA does not contradict any of the diverse faiths. Consequently it is irrelevant to the issues and doctrines of importance. My arguments are independent. For the KCA to prove somehting important, all of my arguments must be overcome: While any moral consequences of God are important, mere existence is not; the KCA first cause may be natural; and the KCA does not prove any property of God at's important.