The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[Deesse23]

Hi all. I'm curious if any of you can refute the Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence


Step 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

E.g. Houses, Trees, Planets etc begin to exist and have a cause. So does the Universe, which brings us to Step 2.

Step 2: The Universe began to exist. 

This step is also proven by mathematical logic, has empirical confirmation in the Big Bang Theory etc.

Step 3: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The conclusion logically follows from the preceding premises. Dr. Craig occasionally goes for a further step.

Step 4: Therefore, an Eternal Creator of the Universe exists, that brought the Universe into existence from nothing.

This sounds very much like the traditional Creator God of classical Judeo-Christian Revelation? Any thoughts on the subject?

Regards,
Joseph.

There's the special pleading between your first and second claims. There's also the non sequitur between claims three and four.

As an aside, you cannot argue anything into existence. If your god is so well hidden he must be argued into reality by such shitty argumentation, he's obviously not worthy of your worship.

If there is indeed a creator of everything, Should his existence not be the most obvious fact of all? Shouldnt everything have his handwriting on it? Yet it does seem to be quite the opposite.