Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[vulcanlogician]

Not God of the Gaps at all.

b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a God-of-the-gaps argument. It is a sound deductive piece of reasoning

Let's just look at b.

If you think it through to the end, the cosmological argument is a god of the gaps argument. It seems well-worn by now (and there are other objections aside from the "god of the gaps" objection), but it can be fruitive to re-hash well-worn arguments.

Let's take a look at the part to which my objection pertains:

1) The universe has a cause;
2) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;

Therefore:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

I take issue with the second premise. It is, in essence, god of the gaps reasoning. Even assuming that the universe has a cause, there is no reason that a personal creator has to be it.

What is wrong with this argument?:

1) Something causes the rain to fall.
2) If something causes the rain to fall, it must be a being who is situated in the heavens and has it within his power to make large amounts of water fall from the sky.

Therefore:

A being who is situated in the heavens with the power to make large amounts of water fall from the sky exists.

It's been said before, but I haven't heard your answer to it. If the universe must have an uncaused cause, why must that uncaused cause be God?