Sorry dude, as a physicist I know that there is not any generally accepted position on whether the universe had a prime mover or whether one was necessary or not or whether there is a necessary being.  Our only two cites for this section, which claims the argument has been scientifically refuted, which is not true, are a popular science book and a popular science lecture.  Now I'm not disrespecting Kaku or Hawking, but Hawking's statement that there was not time before the universe began is not his, it goes back to Augustine of Hippo, which Hawking says in I believe A Brief History of Time, and so is not in opposition to any basic Christian philosophy about God.  And as I pointed out, physicists and cosmologists do investigate what might have happened before the big bang.  It's not a scientifically meaningless question as this section is trying to claim.  And Kaku's description of the molecules in the jar not being moved, as I pointed out, is not motion from nothing.  The molecules had to have a probability or potential to move.  The reason things can move without another body moving them is they had a probability to move based on the uncertainty principle.  When you ask physicists why a particle just started moving or why for instance the particles are generated in a vacuum, they would say because of the uncertainty principle and the laws of quantum physics.  That's implying a cause.  There was a cause for the motion or the creation, not something out of nothing.  Now laws of physics and probabilities are not nothing.  And where did they come from?  Hawking I believe in a actual paper he wrote had the universe jumpstarted from a primeordial wave function, see Hartle-Hawking state, but where did that come from?  And this idea, as most ideas about the initial conditions of the universe, has been in no way accepted by all or even most scientists.  So unless it can be shown from a credible cited source that the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists hold that the cosmological argument has actually been scientifically refuted, not that they just don't personally accept it or something like that, we should not be making that claim.  For instance the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy makes no such claim, and has several pros and cons for the argument based on modern science, including the example of vacuum motion and vacuum genesis.  And as for popular science sources, Carl Sagan always held that the idea of a creator and generator of the universe had neither been proven nor disproven by science.