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.