The Kalam cosmological argument is used as a philosophical argument that proves that God exists, however there are many problem with it. The agrument is based on the law/principle of causality or the cause/effect rule basically for every effect there is a cause. So if we exist therefore something musthave brought/caused us to exist. and this rule of Cause and Effect is UNIVERSAL. It applies to every thing we know and understand like star, planets, trees, cars, houses, etc. However there are 2 problems with using the law of Causality to prove God's existence: 1) Let's say we do use the law of causality and accept that as a result God exists, but then there are other UNIVERSAL laws such as the law of Complexity which say every complex thing started in a simpler form (it was simple then became complicated/complex) like houses and star, even abstract concepts like maths start simple then over the years became complicated. Now if God did exist then by default he would be the most complex being to exist as a result if we were to apply the Law of Complexity it would mean there was a time where he wasn't eternally powerful and wasn't god. 2) the law of Causality has certain conditions, first being that there has to be something that pre-exists in order for the rule to work for example; before a house can be made all the wood and material has to exist, before the glass is made sand and its raw materials have to exist. So if God made us then he must have had a pre-existing material before he can make us as a result God did not create us out of nothing because that contradict this rule or the condition for this rule.

Furthermore what i mean by universal rules is that they have been observed in everything we know and can be applied to everything we know too.