Kalam was propounded, under different names in different centuries, by many different Christian theologians. The best, most succinct, and elegant version was offered by Islamic theologians (sad to say), and hence the name. (I'm obviously a Christian, btw.)
The logic, and evident truth of the proposition caused many Christian and Muslim scholars to "discover" it quite independently of each other, which alone might indicate that there's something to it.
You like to rely on scholars, unless it doesn't suit you (as in this case). I've read your posts.
You should be aware that mathematicians have no issue with it, and philosophers have no issue with it (though they personally might not want to believe in a god). Logicians consider it both logically valid and true (in logic, truth and validity are entirely separate issues).
Thus, you seem to have a problem with man's finest thinkers. Take it up with them.
As I have already demonstrated, Q.E.D., all things have a cause for their existence. You are sounding silly arguing against that proposition. ;)
The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as opposed to the Thomistic and Leibnizian, is one of the better-respected arguments for the existence of God. Because its validity is not controversial, because it aligns with the most prominent scientific theories of the universe, and because it agrees with general philosophical insight concerning properties of infinities, it is one of the more interesting pieces of religious philosophy.
(Q.v. post #181 for a full explanation of the KCA, folks.)
Sauron
Well, no, you haven't - you've simply asserted it to be so. An assertion which, as I point out, is demonstrably false. But don't take my word for it - you should go look up the mechanics of radioactive decay, to confirm what I'm telling you. And then you'll see for yourself that not all things have a cause.