Are you just lazy, ml1954?
LOL. Sorry. I guess I should have been more explicit.
The argument presupposes a creator that was not created.
I thought js1138 pointed that out in his post #183 better than I when he posted "Well something seems to have created itself."
Perhaps you should give us your defintion of 'universe'.
Of course, the kalam argument is supposed to be proving the existence of said creator. It's always much easier to prove something when you simply assume it's true, I find :)
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (q.v., explained at the bottom of Post #181) does nothing of the sort.
You are mistaken: It makes no attempt to cover the issue of a creator. It merely is a mechanism to make it patently obvious that our own universe...had to have been created.
The implication, however, is that someone, or something had to have caused this act of creation. In other words, OURS IS A CREATED UNIVERSE.
The KCA offers logical proof of this. It has never been refuted, and it dates back many centuries.
(Q.v., last part of Post #181, read it carefully.)