What is wrong with this premise?

[robvalue]

The lack of a discernible cause does not equate to no cause. It just may not be discernible with current technology.

But isn't that just a "cause of the gaps" argument?

Right. There may be a cause, but this premise flatly states that there is one. So this is as yet not valid.

---

But I mean really, all this Kalam stuff is utterly crud. Even if you allow the whole thing, it gets you nowhere towards the obviously intended conclusion. It barely limps over the first hurdle, leaving three other much more difficult hurdles.