The following argument has the same issue that the Kalam Cosmological Argument has:
P1 Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
P2 The universe resembles these human artifacts.
P3/C1 Therefore, it is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
P4 However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
P5/C2 Therefore, there is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.
The predicate in this argument is: are products of intelligent design; have a purpose. It is true that human artifacts are products of intelligent design and it is also true that they have a purpose. However, it doesn’t follow that since its true of human artifacts—which constitutes all the things we know that are designed—that it is true of the universe collectively. Therefore, the argument is unsound because the fallacy of composition has been committed.
This argument has two other issues though. P2 isn’t true. How is the universe like human artifacts? That is simply wishful thinking. Therefore, P2 is also fallacious. Thus, the argument can be proven to be unsound due to P2. The argument can also be proven to be unsound because of its conclusion. P5/C2 is a non sequitur. How does it follow that the designer is powerful? The only characteristic attributed to this designer up until that point was intelligence. We arrive at the conclusion and suddenly, it is also powerful. The argument fails in more ways that one.