Essay help: Philosophy and Ethics

First bit of advice. Use "cosmological argument" not "Kalaam". Always use the terms given in the question. Kalam has a slightly different heritage

A mention of aristotle is definitely wortwhile here, using his definition of first cause.
Might be worth mentioning that, even if the first cause is god, it doesn't give any support for any particular god or a single god.
The argument contradicts itself, by saying that everything must have a cause except for the first cause, therefore not everything needs a cause.

A few more ideas . .
STRENGTHS:
>AQUINAS has THREE (not just one)ways to support cosmological argument which all use evidence we can understand.
>Cosmological argument is 'a posteriori' meaning it is built on observation and evidence, not just logic or theory.
>Aquinas' 2nd way cause&effect is observed by populations worldwide
>COPPLESTON(cause in esse/cause in fieri) and LEIBNIZ(principle of sufficient reason) are supporters
>Science cannot disprove evidence used in cosmological argument, or provide a thorough alternative
>Science agrees that the universe had a beginning and does not go back 'ad infinitum'
> Kalam argument by William Lane Craig supports how infinite regress is impossible, therefore the world must have began. (Think of an infinite library, if you take away a book its still infinite - impossible. Infinity doesn't have a numerical value so you cannot add to it, therefore the universe cannot be infinite otherwise we wouldn't be able to add years on to it)
>Can identify god as the first cause as the universe could be either a CHOICE or NATURAL OCCURANCE. As laws of nature cannot have existed before the universe, it wasn't a natural occurance - therefore it was a choice made by a personal with the ability to make a choice

WEAKNESSES:
>Hume says cause&effect is false and that events occur in conjunction but are falsely linked
>Aquinas has used observations used in this world, but assumes that they apply to the entire universe, this could be a false assumption
>RUSSEL: fallacy of composition - because things in the universe have a cause, does not mean the universe itself has a cause, false assumptions as cannot assume what we cannot experience
>Even if it proves there is a 'first cause' this is not necessarily the God of classical Theism, it does not help us discover any further about the first cause or God
>GOD OF THE GAPS - god has been used in the past to fill in what science does not yet know, therefore science may find the answer in the future