The Kalam cosmological argument as presented by William Lane Craig is as follows: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2. The universe began to exist. (semi-intellectual nonsense involving infinity) 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. 4. .... 5. That cause is god. Most times I see this argument refuted it is done between step 3 and 5. I think a more fundamental problem with this argument is the premises, 1 and 2. The argument asserts that time has a least element (let's call this t=t0), and then goes on to make causal arguments about this least element. If event A at time=tA is the cause of event B at time=tB, then tA<tB necessarily. If tB=t0, then by our current understanding of causality, B could not have had a cause. Is this a valid rebuttal to Kalam, or am I missing something?