1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.The wording in this statement is tricky, but I agree. If something begins, then there was a cause.
2.The universe began to exist.Yes! It did. We call that the Big Bang. (Read this article to see what I think about using the Big Bang to prove God, yet denying that it happened.)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.Again, I agree. It's the Big Bang.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.Whoa! Hold on! That's a lot to assume from just asserting that the universe had a cause.
4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:Why couldn't the universe have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions? The writer makes an asertion and does not explain why or why not. Also, there's a lot that we do not know about our universe. We can't just assume this without knowing what is "outside" of our universe.
4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.You haven't proven 4.12 yet! Well, OK! What if it was. What do we know about this supposed personal, free agent?
4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:Why must he be uncaused? Maybe he had a cause that was uncaused. It doesn't follow that this creator has to be the first cause.
4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)Why does this have to be so? Again, maybe the creator has a cause that was caused by an uncaused cause. Why does this regression have to begin with this creator?
4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.This is Douglas Adam's puddle argument. Maybe, because we are evolved, we are fine-tuned to exist in this universe. (Consequently, this universe seems to be fined tuned to create black holes. It just happens that life has a good chance of forming in such a universe.)
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.It's special pleading. The writer sets up some ground rules, but God is not subject to these rules.
If an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, can the writer prove to me that it is his God? (I'm assuming the christian one, since it is a christian making the argument.) Despite, all the logic, the writer made the assertion that the "causer" is "personal". However, he didn't even bother to prove it logically. The writer is obviously a theist, but he can only assert the existance of a deistic god, because he didn't want to bother to prove that the creator is personal.
Christians make very specific claims about God. While the Kalam Cosmological Argument attempts to prove logically that a creator god exists, it does nothing to prove the specific claims made by christians. The "God" proven with this argument could be Yahweh, but it could also with equal probability be Azathoth, The IPU, Meelktar-zono, Mighty Universe Creating Pixies (a nod to Matt Dillahunty), or anything at all. The argument says nothing at all about the identity of the creator.