Kalam cosmological argument

The Kalam cosmological argument
Argues that big bang theory of the universe means that the universe had a beginning, and it therefore requires a cause.

i.e.
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause
2. The universe had a beginning
3. Therefore the universe had a cause

This is very weak since the big bang is the event least likely to require a cause according to normal physics - however modern physics indicates it may, nevertheless, have actually had a cause - totally negating the reference to the big bang in the argument. The alternate theory must offer something that is less likely to require a cause and ascribing that role to a god is nonsense.

Why?
Well
1) Time has no meaning before matter existed therefore there was not only no matter to be god over - there was also no "time" to do that god activity in.
2) implying god existed before the big bang is to imply god is part of time and there is any meaning to saying he existed "before" something - that is a fundamental limit on his power - one you can make but may well have interesting implications since if god is governed by time he should also be governed by space (space time duality) and therefore things like entropy and so forth.
The philosophical way around that is to say he exists outside of time and thus exists during every event (in sense) but not "before" or "after" time since that has no meaning.