Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[R00tKiT]

Kalam is a fallacious argument. It is invalid in form,

You are a joke. Professional philosophers write about this argument for a living, and they know how to make an argument that is valid in form. The Kalam is obviously valid, in the sense that if the premises are true, the conclusion is necessarily true. If you don't see that, I will go as far as saying you have comprehension issues.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're confusing validity and soundness, because soundness is the central issue, not validity. Otherwise, you don't know what you're talking about.

Not to mention, even if it were valid and sound, it still would not demonstrate a god exists.

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

God does not appear in either premise, nor the conclusion.

Therefore, Kalam is not an argument for the existence of a god, it is an argument for the existence of a cause for the universe.

There is of course the additional work of showing that the cause of the universe is identical to the God of classical theism, and the Kalam is a very important step towards this conclusion. And so it merits full consideration.

To be clear, I am a gnostic atheist regarding a God who is both omniscient and omnipotent, as I believe those attributes contradict each other and any God that is supposed to have them is a married bachelor. An omnipotent being can do anything, an omniscient being can only do what it always knew it was going to do. 

The statement " can only do what it always knew it was going to do" is not problematic, and doesn't entail a contradiction with omnipotence, because God doesn't change His intention (because he's omniscient, we only change our mind when we are presented with new information/see the information from a new perspective, but God always has full information and knows all possible perspectives, so he never needs to change his decisions).