The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

The oak tree in my yard began to exist. What is the cause of its existence?
The tree grew from an acorn, so we can say the acorn caused the tree to exist.
But an acorn isn’t a tree; soil and water and sunlight are also needed.
So, we can say the cause of the tree is the acorn, the soil, the water, and sunlight.

Already, we see Premise 1 fails in that the tree does not have “a” cause of its existence.
Rather, it has multiple causes.

Moreover, we can continue indefinitely.
Acorn, soil, water, and sunlight floating free in space won’t cause a tree.
So, we can add Earth’s gravity to the causes.

To continue, suppose the acorn had originally fallen on a rock but some squirrel happened to knock it off, onto fertile soil. So, we can add the squirrel to the list of causes.

But if we change Premise 1 to “Whatever begins to exist has one or more causes of its existence,” then the Kalam fails to prove a single cause for the universe. If there are multiple causes, do we want to conclude that Gods may have created the universe?

In any event, the Kalam as it’s usually presented has a flawed Premise 1. The argument is a “Kalam”ity.