A simple challenge for atheists

[Esquilax]

Isn't the goal of a logical argument to prove a conclusion?

Ideally, but there's so many elements of Kalam that make it clear that, in this case, the argument was made so that it could get to this conclusion, rather than so it could get to a true conclusion. It's not so much that Kalam has a conclusion that's the problem, but that it's so very obvious that nobody sat down and asked themselves how to best formulate an argument that reflects reality at its conception, but rather sat down and asked themselves how they can reach the conclusion that god exists.

For example, I mentioned how irritating I found the "begins to exist" language earlier, but did you know that it wasn't in the initial version of the argument? Originally it was just "everything has a cause." The "begins to exist" part was added in after people quite rightly responded that if everything has a cause, so should god. It's this kind of thoughtless, instant goalpost shifting that tips Kalam's hand: no new evidence was brought to light, nothing real that would prompt the change at all. No, in fact the argument was changed, a whole new category of being was asserted to exist, because somebody proved the original argument wrong. The response wasn't to discard the argument when it was proved to be wrong in its conclusions, it was to assert some new facet, equally baselessly, to retain the conclusion. It makes one certain that no matter what is said against it, some theist shyster will change some aspect of it, so that the conclusion is always "true." It's not falsifiable, because your side keeps moving the goalposts based on nothing, every time we corner the damn argument.

Is it relevant that you don't like the conclusion or can anticipate the ramifications?

Oh, that's funny, I don't recall ever expressing my personal opinion on the subject of the conclusion, whether I liked it or not. Hmm. Seems like you're doing what you theists always seem to do whenever someone presents reasons why your arguments are wrong, and are going on the attack. No, it's not that I might have good reasons for disagreeing, I just don't want there to be a god, so ha! Give me a break.

As for the ramifications, we've already established that, at best, Kalam gets you to "something created the universe." There's no ramifications in that vague sentiment that I might find remotely offensive, logically.

You demand evidence. The evidence is that:

1. To the best of our understanding, matter (including universes) does not spring into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. the universe exists.

3. The best of our knowledge is necessarily limited to within the temporal framework of a post-big bang universe, and therefore is not fully comprehensive.
4. To the best of our knowledge, we've never seen anything create anything out of absolutely nothing either.
5. Given this paucity of real information on this event, beyond theoretical frameworks, it is more honest to admit that you don't know, than to invent desperately to keep your religion relevant to the picture.

It seems the collective lot of you want to argue from incredulity first and then throw up a few objections that science will figure it out, there are actual infinities, or maybe causality does not exist before T=0.

What argument from incredulity is this?

You give no conclusive defeaters to the premises so the conclusion remains: It is more likely than not that the universe had a cause.

That is not how the burden of proof works: you don't get to just assert random ass premises and then demand they be taken as true until they're disproven. Where the hell did you learn argumentation, that you think that?

As you already know, if the universe (or multiverse) had a cause, God is a candidate.

Not until you can demonstrate that a god is even possible. Things that are impossible aren't candidates for the cause of other things. You got a ways to go before you can even get to this inane "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true," point you're trying to leap on.