> The logic only applies so long as time is linear and uni directional.

Though there are a lot of fun theories about time out there, there is still no science that leads us otherwise. Going backward in time is not possible, because you'd be going forward in time as you were going backward in time, and interesting conundrum but ultimately a contradiction.

> Both of which are plausibly false until some femto seconds after the big bang.

I'm not convinced we have warrant to use the word "plausibly" here. Since the nature of time is completely unknowable before the Big Bang (primarily meaning if it existed or not), we can't prematurely conclude it's "plausible" that time was multi-directional or multi-dimensional.

> Additionally, for all we know it could be an innate property of 'nothingness' to create something to fill the void.

It's intriguing that you give credence to the idea that nothingness could be a causal mechanism to bring about something-ness. I'm not aware in logic or science where the effect can be greater than the cause. It's like saying a mouse could give birth to a horse (I know I'm being silly, but trying to make the point) or a pint of energy could somehow yield a gallon of energy. If energy can neither be created nor destroyed in a natural system, how does nothingness created somethingness? That can't possibly be the more logical conclusion than what I have stated: That something outside the universe (outside of nature) was its causal mechanism. Given what we know about nature, and that the cause must be greater than the effect, logical I'm driven to the direction that the causal mechanism for the universe was powerful, purposeful, timeless, intelligent, and personal, given that we see these things in nature. Otherwise you have to say the power that we see in the universe came from nothingness, purpose came out of nowhere, intelligence came from non-intelligence, personality came from non-personality, and consciousness came from nowhere. To me that's a far weaker argument and a far weaker progression of thought.

It's like you're grasping at straws to avoid a logical conclusion, that power came from power, personality came from personality, purpose came from purpose, and consciousness came from consciousness. And in Kalam's logic, none of these can have derived from a natural source because nothing can spontaneously generate itself from nonexistence into existence. Something that doesn't exist cannot be its own cause to spring into existence.

Thats not what the conclusion is saying though. The logic only applies so long as time is linear and uni directional. Both of which are plausibly false until some femto seconds after the big bang. Additionally, for all we know it could be an innate property of 'nothingness' to create something to fill the void. Ultimately, we don't know.

The argument shows that if the universe had a beginning (which is recognized scientific perspective right now), the causal mechanism of the universe was something outside of the universe. Something that does not exist cannot be its own cause to spring into existence.

Theists continually claim that it gives evidence of theism, but I don't see it. Can someone explain?

I understand the KCA to be as follows

1. everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore the universe has a cause

how does one get from "something caused the universe" to YHWH? every time I or someone else asks for proofs for God this one of the most common arguments put forth. however given there's an infinite number of possible answers to the conclusion I don't understand what the point could be for this proof in the first place.