Does the Kalam cosmological argument prove that the prime Creator created this universe directly

Question

I was reading about the Kalam cosmological argument on wikipedia. The conclustion of which is:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful

I think a more appropriate conclusion given the premises are true would be:

An uncaused, personal Creator of the top level universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful

What I mean by this is that if there is some necessary existence as in the argument it doesn't mean that this entity directly created this universe just as it didn't directly create a technologicaly sophisticated item such as an iPhone. What I am referring to is a that we might living is a simulation or something similar. Given that only two technological advancements need to be made, more powerful computing and either the ability to create consciousness or do what they do in the matrix, I don't think this is to far fetched. Another possibility is that the Creator created lesser beings who then created this universe and the religions such as Islam or Christianity.

The difference between there being a Creator with these properties making this universe directly or not is important for when the argument is made respect to religion. Islam, Christianity etc. claim that the changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful Creator directly created this universe and communicates directly and specifically for this universe. But this is not necessarily the case. A mortal being, simply with more technological abilities or a non all-powerful being could have created the universe?

I'm not saying that intermediate simulations refute that the Creator exists with respect to KCA. I am only saying that the KCA doesn't help you when arguing that the Creator directly created this universe as the religions mentioned assert.

Answer 1

Islam, Christianity etc. claim that the changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful Creator directly created this universe and communicates directly and specifically for this universe. But this is not necessarily the case. A mortal being, simply with more technological abilities could have created, the universe?

The Kalam cosmological argument never distinguishes between such monotheistic religions. It does not attempt to. What it does attempt to argue is that the universe is the result of an intelligent being who is uncreated and outside the universe. The distinction between uncreated creator and creation is fundamental.

Simulation "universes" are not relevant to the Kalam argument. Simulations are not universes, but merely parts of the one universe. (Similarly, the multiverse is a misnomer. If it exists, the universe is the entirety of the multiverse, not a single verse within it.) If a simulation was created by some smart mortal being, the Kalam argument does not apply to that being, but to the creator of that being's universe.

Answer 2

That is a valid question, however, monotheistic religions are outside the scope of the kalam cosmological argument which only proves the existence of a necessary Creator.

Regarding the possibility of a "top-level universe" the reason we don't specify which universe the Creator created is because we don't know any besides our own.

Let me elaborate. We have no evidence to show that another universe exists or that we are part of another one, therefore, to assume such an unlikely thing is unnecessary and unproductive.

Also, according to the principle called Occam's razor: when presented with two theories, everything else being the same, the one which is simpler (makes fewer assumptions or takes fewer premises) is better.

So, talking about a top-level universe is not the most professional thing to do if you will not attempt to prove its existence.