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

[SteveII]

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?

I don't like the Wikipedia formulation. Here is the one I use:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

and what must that cause be like:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

This avoids a misunderstanding of the argument and also eliminates parody attempts like above. 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which number(s) do you think are false?