In Defense of the Kalam

[Rampant.A.I.]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I've done my research on this, and as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, as far as I have seen, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why.
Avodaiah

By "do your research," I assume you meant "Read this William Lane Craig Article":

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defens...l-argument

Had you actually researched the argument, you would find:

The KCA is an argument formulated by Islamic thinkers to argue the existence or Allah, not Yaweh.

Historically, the Unmoved Mover has had many objections, which cannot be avoided no matter how many times it is reformulated.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

1. What caused the First Cause? An un-causes first cause is special pleading.

2. It assumes causality existed pre-causality: That the current rules of the universe applied pre-universe.

The Universe began to exist.

1. It is not known whether the universe "began to exist".

2. Nothing has ever been witnessed "coming into existence" the same way the universe may have come into existence: See causality.

Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

1. This cause is undefined. If the two premises are correct, there is nothing to indicate what this first cause was.

2. There is nothing to indicate why it should be defined as not only as God, but a specific God with specific attributes.

3. Anything can be substituted here and hold the same logical weight as "GodDidIt".

4. The claim "God is the only possible cause" is special pleading. What caused God? Why is God immune from causality?

P.S.: People have "tried to refute it a thousand times" because some idiot keeps presenting it as a "new" argument. When objections are raised, they tweak the argument and re-introduce it.

The argument has never been shown to be valid.