Why is it a straw man? How is "If X is true for everything within the universe, then X is also true for the universe itself." not a correct representation of the argument? It's not correct of course if any of the three statements I made are false of course but which one do you think is false and why?

It does not follow that if the sum total of all the parts of something have one characteristic, then the something also have that one characteric because it is a fallacy of composition as i learn from 180 proof that it's called. In fact, I would say that it is false for the big majority of characteristics.

That definition can be used on anything that is composed of smaller parts. A house, for example, is all the things that make the house, taken together. Without the parts, there would be no house. But even if all the different parts share a characteric, let's say "have the same value regardless of location", that characteristic is not true for the house.

From what I have seen and read at least, theist see the multiverse theory as something non-theist come up with to not have to deal with a god. Like here for example.
The Kalam argument says nothing about multiverses and I agree with you, how could you possibly know? If there is a God, maybe this is just one of many universes he made. Or maybe there are many gods and they all made their own universes. :)

I disagree, even if the expansion of one Mpc of space is 73 km/s compared to its neighbouring Mpc of space, the relative expansion rate at the extremes is still faster than the speed of light. The article (very interresting, thanks for the link) says that 18 million light years is the distance from us where space expands faster than the speed of light.

That is awsome, I didn't know it had a name. :)

The fact that the universe expands faster than the speed of light is reason the Kalam doesn't work for me.
The problem with speed of light is that everyone measures it as the same regardless of their own movement. Which is a bit of a brain twister.

How do you know that?

Doesn't that make premise 2 and the conclusion obsolete?