Kalam Cosmological Argument

\“Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we look for depends upon what we think. What we think depends upon what we perceive. What we perceive determines what we believe. What we believe determines what we take to be true. What we take to be true is our reality.” -Gary Zukav
If all of this is true, how do you perceive God?
The most fascinating argument for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument. The argument that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not. The ontological arguments claim that once we understand
Everything that exists has a cause. The Universe exists. Therefore, the
Universe has a cause and the cause is God. But if everything that exists has a cause, then what caused God?
During the Islamic Golden Age, two men, Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali, came up with an argument which we call the Kalam Cosmological argument. Since this was not written in
Europe, it was pretty much ignored by most western philosophers. That was not until LaneCraig rediscovered it and wrote a doctoral thesis on it. The very simple criticism of who made God actually had a very simple solution. They simply modified the argument by stating that everything that begins to exists has a cause and that the universe began to exists. So, since the Universe began to exists, it has a cause and this cause is God. But crucially, since
God is eternal, he has no beginning and therefore God has no cause. So, the question is, what caused the uncaused being, that we call God? This I kind of like asking what painted that unpainted wall? The answer is the same,
You should believe in God even if there is a strong chance that he might not be real, because the penalty for not believing, namely going to hell, is so undesirable that it is more prudent to take our chances with belief. People believe that you have nothing to lose, so just believe in God. Personally, I disagree because there is actually a lot that I could lose because religion, with absolutely no evidence, teaches us that it is okay to not understand things, it is fine to not do research into things and it is fine to not have thoughts in our head on how things work that are completely unjustified. That is something pretty important to lose. Maybe the afterlife is one of the most ingenious forms of manipulation ever thought of. Most rational people fear death, and religion gives an excuse for avoiding non-existence. Not to mention the twist of torture as an eminent threat for not following the rules that the church is too lazy and powerless to enforce on their own. What if God purposefully made himself hidden to test our intelligence? What if Atheists are rewarded for reasoning and