Objeciones kalam de bolsillo.

Primera premisa: Todo lo que tiene un inicio en su existencia, tiene una causa.

1) Nada tiene un inicio en su existencia, porque todo es materia y la materia siempre ha

existido.

William Lane Craig has trotted out his old Kalam Cosmological Argument once again in the link
below on the ABC.

Despite the many ways this fails, he continues to put it forward.

P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

S1) The universe began to exist.
C1) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The four most common ways I've seen where this fails are as follows.

Fail1) In creating the premise that every "thing" that begins to exist has a cause, this indicates that
this is a subset of all things that exist. The missing component is everything that exists which didn't
begin to exist. When you enquire of the proponent of the Kalam, what is included in this missing
subset, they reply "God". This then changes the first premise to,

P1 alt1) Everything except God has a cause.

This turns the entire argument into a logical fallacy "special pleading" where the ultimate
conclusion is preset in the first premise.

Fail2) Another way this argument fails, is the precedent on which the first premise is derived.
Where do we get the notion that things have causes? Observation! Everything we observe to
"begin", actually has a naturalistic cause. This leaves us with the new premise,

P1 alt2) Everything that begins to exist has a naturalistic cause.

This then defeats the goal of the Kalam.

Fail3) A third way it fails is as follows, nothing actually begins to exist but is simply a
reconfiguration of existing subatomic particles and energy. When we say something is beginning
to exist, we are simply relabeling a new configuration. This leaves us with the new premise,

P1 alt3) Nothing causes anything to "begin" to exist.

This renders the entire argument moot.

Fail4) A fourth way that this argument fails, is with the sub-premise, "the universe began to exist".
The universe expanded from a hot dense state. That's as far back as we can go at this stage. This
then modifies the sub-premise.

S1 alt1) We don't know if the universe began to exist.

The conclusion then becomes a non sequitur.

You could then combine them into this,

P1) Every new configuration of existing matter and energy has a naturalistic cause.
S1) We don't know if or how the universe "began" to exist or have any verifiable evidence for the
existence of a God or gods.
C1) Cosmological arguments for the existence of God fail!

Fail5) Another way this argument can fail is looking at the latest ideas from Lawrence Krauss in "A
universe from nothing" which indicates that nothing is inherently unstable and it is potentially
inevitable that something would come from nothing (without the need for a supernatural entity).