The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is False

For those of you whodon't know what the kalam argument is, here it is:P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The Universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the Universe must have a cause. Defense for P1: A cell phone began to exist. It came froma factory. A baby begins to exist via a mother. Defense for P2: There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting the Universe began to exist. For example, if the Universe has always existed, we'd be out of usable energy by now, since there cannot be an infinite amount of energy. Also, the Big Bang did happen. Therefore, the Universe must have a cause. Said cause must be powerful enough to create the Universe. The cause must also be uncaused, it must have always existed, without a beginning. To say "who created God", and say the Universe always existed makes no sense. Again, the Universe had a beginning, and its cause needs to not have a beginning in order for the Universe to exist. Rebuttal: Opening:"At first glance, this is a completely sound argument with the first two seemingly obvious statements followed by a logical conclusion. " It is simplistic, yes. How about you examine the premises? "However, despite the seemingly logical appearance, deep down under the rational surface is fallacies being used to pull the wool over people's eyes. " Explain the fallacies. Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Overview: I've expanded upon this premise earlier. A baby begins to exist, it comes from a mother. A computer comes from a factory. The factory also began to exist, humans created it. Fallacy of Composition:"But assuming what is true for the objects within the universe, to be true for the universe itself, is a fallacy. " So the Universe has always existed? Premise 1 is basically an overview of facts, premise 2 is suggesting the Universe indeed begin to exist, and because of P1, we conclude the Universe has a cause. I agree it would be a fallacy had the 2nd premise not existed. However, P2 states it has a cause, since evidence other than computers coming from factories. Premise 2: The Universe began to exist. So. .. what about infinity? Are you saying that infinite regression is possible? Please get to the point. "Even if the universe had a cause that brought it into existence, there is no possible reason to believe that God is that cause which brought it into being. " The Kalam argument states that the God is "Timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, uncaused, immensely powerful, and personal". Sure, this sounds a lot like how God would be described. But the Kalam argument merely states that the Universe must have a cause. You can call the cause God, Joe, Moe, BoBo, Mewtwo. .. it doesn't really matter. The Kalam argument doesn't go as far to prove that the cause is benevolent or anything. Also, you haven't actually touched the 2nd premise. Did the Universe begin to exist? In Conclusion. .. "Even if the conclusion is true, that the universe has a cause of its existence; there is no rational reason to believe that the cause is a transcendent personal God. " The Kalam argument doesn't go that far. Proving The Lord's existence isn't what the Kalam argument does. It merely shows that there must besome diety (You can call it Arceus, God, Mark, Giratina, Pikachu, Morgan Freeman, Joe. .. ) that created the Universe. One Question:Did the Universe begin to exist? If it had a a beginning, then it must've had a cause. If It didn't have a cause, say why (And not scream "fallacy of composition", since that doesn't really say anything. ). If you say the Universe didn't begin to exist, then ask what the Big Bang is. So. .. do you also want Pokepuffs? I've got lots of flavors!