Well, I noticed that this argument has crept into several threads, so I wanted to give it its own home. I will copy some things I have already said elsewhere, and comment a a few things I read. Happy Hunting!
Basic Kalam Cosmological Argument (Thanks to Bill Craig who dug this back up a while back)
1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause 2. The Universe had a beginning 3. Therefore the Universe has a cause
1. The only thing that science tells us that everything that has a beginning has a cause. God does not have a beginning, by his very definition of being a self existent necessary being. And no, that is not self-contradictory, that is only inconsistent with naturalism or materialism, but the fact that theism and naturalism or non-compatible is not really surprising. Actually, scientists argued for a long time that the Universe was a solid state and eternal, and they had no problem saying it had no beginning. So surely, we do not need to question this for God either. The problem of course is now:
2. And with Big Bang Cosmology we have all the scientific evidence pointing to the fact that the Universe had indeed a beginning. And "before" the big bang there was, in the terms of material and energy, "No Nothing." Someone has postulated crunching and oscillating universes. The problem with these is that they are nothing but ad hoc solutions with absolutely no empirical evidence in their favor. They are based on the fact that this universe HAD a beginning, but in order to avoid having to take a non-material cause into consideration the ad hoc solution of a crunch is postulated. It is in essence, a faith based move without any data to support it. However, we have not a shred of evidence that anything ever crunched. Admittedly, the second premise is not true if the Universe is oscillating or crunching, or if there is a Multiverse or something. However, without evidence for any of that, and WITH the best evidence we have pointing to a big bang 13 billion years ago, we ought to conclude a BEGINNING. A further problem with crunching, oscillating, or multiverses is that they all seem to invoke an actual infinite. While infinites are conceptually possible in mathematics, trying to invoke an actual infinite in the physical realm leads to all sorts of weird paradoxical situations so that most physicists shy away from any theory that seems to invoke such a thing. So we not only have no empirical evidence for an infinitely old uni/multi/crunch-verse, we have some mathematical objections to the possibility of such a thing. All this leads to reasonably accept 2.
So with 3. being the logical conclusion of the argument, we have to have a powerful non-material cause that caused the universe. Hm... Who might fit that description?
If you want to argue with 1. than you are doing bad science. If you want to argue with 2. than you are not following the evidence in cosmology. If you want to argue with the conclusion 3., then you fail at logic.
Of course this cause could be something other than the Christian God, but it has to be non-material non-energy, so materialism is false unless you can refute this argument.
On the fact of turteling on the argument that I read somewhere: This is not an unfair argument. If the universe is eternal, than it does NECESSARILY have a cause according to this argument, just as God does not. It might still, even necessarily, have a cause, but the Kalam Cosmological Argument would not prove it. If the universe did not begin, the argument fails, but again, empirical science at the moment shows that it did begin. As source for that I am going with Frank Tipler who, in Dawkin's, "God Delusion" is pointed out as one of the the go-to-guys in Cosmology questions. So I am going by the source that one of "your guys" pointed to.
Alright, discussion opened, surely there is more to be said. If you have any objections, please try to keep this neat by saying if you disagree with premise 1, premise 2, or the structure of the argument.
I see no problem with the Big Bang in regard to this argument - its cause was the singularity reaching critical mass, not being able to sustain nearly infinite compression. If something can't sustain such high levels of compression, the next logical step would be decompression of the mass. Thus, the Universe.
Theology is forced into the margins of science. It tries only to answer questions for which we have not scientifically been able to discern an answer for - however, it does not mean that theological answers are good answers; they are merely placeholders for people who seem to want all of the answers to the universe now.
I'd much rather have a good answer then a bad one. As such, I'm not willing to be impatient and concede to something for which we do not have evidence for as an explanation for something for which we haven't figured out yet. That just seems.... silly. Even with some logic, eventually , there comes a time when you make the decision that there must be a higher being of some kind - it's a leap of faith, and nothing more.
I disagree with this. What do you mean by cause. As in cause and effect... or an actual reason.
If you mean cause and effect, then god (or a higher power of ANY kind) is not a valid argument. Just because something CAUSED the universe to happen, its no evidence of a higher power. And when I say something, I really dont mean a higher power. When the sun warms the earth and gives life to the plants, it does not do it with forthought (regardless of how you think the sun got there).
If you mean a REASON... then we are back to square one and noone has any real answers, and all we can do is say
