I've seen several critiques of Craig's argument from the atheist camp. I have heard that there are Reformed Christians who may disagree with Craig's conclusion or premises. Two questions: 1. How is the Craig's argument any different than the traditional cosmological argument? 2. Does anyone know of any critiques of Craig's Kalam argument from a Reformed Christian perspective? (BTW, not looking for a presupp critique of the Kalam argument as it relates to whether evidential vs. presupp apologetic approaches...i'm really interested in the actual validity of the argument itself.) Here is the argument: Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The universe began to exist. Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.