What in the world is the source of this argument? This is quite a terrible formulation of an argument. And several of its premises are unintelligent. However, scraps of the proper formulation of the argument can be put back together into a cogent argument and response. The proper Kalam cosmological argument was developed by Muslim scholars and made popular more recently by Christian apologist William Lane Craig, and is frequently used by both Muslim and Christian apologists today. You can also see more on Wikipedia and a philosophy of religion website.
- Anything that begins to exist has a cause. (correct)
It is not "anything that exists has a cause," as the other answers already pointed out. Then you would have an infinite regression of causes. This is supported by the principle of causality, inductive reasoning, rational intuition (self-evident truth), and by use of reductio ad absurdum reasoning.
- The universe began to exist. (correct)
This statement is necessary for premise 3 to follow logically. The 2nd premise is not and cannot be "The universe needs a cause" or even that "the universe has a cause." That argument would require one of a few bad options: 1) remove premise 1 because it is redundant, either way leaving premise 2 nakedly unsupported, or, slightly better, 2) change premise 2 to be "The Universe exists." Neither of these is a good option. The best option is to replace the premise listed in the question with my #2 premise to make a proper syllogism. This premise is the one commonly and properly used.
This statement is supported by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (also known as the Kinematic Incompleteness Theorem), Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and Big Bang Cosmology (not to endorse the entire theory, just the finitude of the universe).
- Therefore, the universe has a cause. (correct)
This is a logical deduction that follows directly from the first two premises.
Premises 4, 5, and 6 are an incoherent, unintelligible mess. I will do my best in just responding to them rather than attempting to fix them.
- The First Cause requires a decision to initiate an effect (accepted)
Sure. Not the main concern of the question.
- This premise is multiple claims. They will be addressed individually. (All incorrect)
5.1. The First Cause is unintelligent. (incorrect)
This claim does not follow from the previous premises, so it requires additional support. It also contradicts premise 5.4, which says that the First Cause has the ability to decide to create the universe, presupposing some kind of intelligence or rationality.
5.2. The First Cause is impersonal. (incorrect)
The First Cause of the universe, by definition and following from a proper cosmological argument, created the universe by a decision (see premise 4) or an act of volition. An impersonal cause would be a mechanism that would, in fact, spontaneously generate a universe, and therefore could not create a finite universe. This spontaneous generation would have resulted in instantaneous causation and therefore an eternal universe. This contradicts premise 2. The fact that the First Cause created the universe with an act of will (volition) means that the Cause is personal, as He is personally invested in the universe and created it because He wanted to. Also see this reference.
5.3. The First Cause is an unconsciousness (incorrect)
This fun premise uses completely incorrect grammar that contradicts both premise 4 and 5.4.
5.4. The First Cause has only the ability to decide whether to create the universe or not create the universe spontaneously out of itself. (incorrect)
There are multiple problems here.
1) Spontaneity - If anything forms “spontaneously” then it would not come from anyone else’s decision. Spontaneous is defined as something occurring from a “sudden inner impulse or inclination” “without external stimulus.” In thermodynamics, any event with a deltaG (Gibb’s Free Energy) <0 will occur spontaneously and will happen without an external stimulus, such as the First Cause. Therefore, premise 5.4 is self-contradictory with an external stimulus creating something that is said within the premise to form without external stimulus (“spontaneously”).
2) Creation from self – The concept of creation out of itself is incoherent and logically invalid. Creation ex nihlo (from nothing) makes more sense than creation from self. If object A did not previously exist, then A cannot create A out of A, since A did not exist prior to its existence/creation. This is fallacious.
3) Single ability – this claim is given without support and does not follow from the premises. The most plausible conclusion that, if the First Cause has the power to create the universe, he could easily have the power to choose something besides creating a universe. Such as, create spiritual beings, create spiritual residences, form multi-dimensional objects by creating space without creating time (thus isn’t a universe as we conceive it), create time and keep track of it (also wouldn’t be a universe), duplicate Himself, form subsets of Himself, subdivide and reproduce Himself, etc. All of these options are not this “single ability” option that all seem feasible.
5.5. Anything only capable of a yes or no decision is impersonal. (incorrect)
See premise 5.2 for more discussion, but anything capable of a decision at all is personal. Impersonality does not follow from being limited to a yes or no decision. We often assess animals as being intelligent and personable though we also agree they are only acting according to their nature and instinct, since they don’t have consciousness or rationality.
- Therefore Allah does not exist. (incorrect)
THIS CONCLUSION DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM ANY OF THE PREMISES. Premise 5.5 only even attempted to establish an impersonal Cause/God. An impersonal God does not mean God does not exist.
Overall, this was an absolutely terrible formulation of a very bad argument that fails miserably. I hope this helps. There are powerful, proper formulations of the Kalam cosmological argument for God’s existence, as well as for other arguments for God, like the teleological argument, argument from contingency, moral argument, ontological argument, historical argument, etc.