William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[FatAndFaithless]

Good one Steve. A reeeeeeal standup comedian.

[Jackalope]

And since a first cause was an intentional act, we can argue that it was a conscious mind.

Asserted without evidence.

[robvalue]

You can argue that it's a magic puppy dog called Arnold. It's a spluttering failure, even among the awful apologetic excuses for arguments. Even if you grant the whole thing, how on earth do you plan to "investigate" some abstract first cause? It's absolutely ridiculous. Hand waving at its worst.

[SteveII]

And since a first cause was an intentional act, we can argue that it was a conscious mind.

Asserted without evidence.

How could a first cause be anything but an intentional act?

[Jackalope]

Asserted without evidence.

How could a first cause be anything but an intentional act?

Do you have anything but a fallacious argument from ignorance?

[Mudhammam]

How could a first cause be anything but an intentional act?

By being a random one.

[robvalue]

Or by being an unintentional one.

Or being something else we can't even conceive of.

[Jackalope]

How could a first cause be anything but an intentional act?

Do you have anything but a fallacious argument from ignorance?

Let me make this perfectly clear, in the event that subtlety whistled past your ears.

It's your claim. You don't get to play the ignorant fool and try to shift the burden of proof. It's your claim, you don't get to merely assert that no other alternative exists, nor is it up to anyone else to counterclaim it. You made the claim - you a can attempt to demonstrate it, or it can be summarily dismissed.

You want to ship that turd of an argument? You pay the fucking freight.

Incidentally, I don't buy WLC's argument against past infinities, either - and it's clear that he doesn't either, not without special pleading, due to carving out a special exception for his uncaused, timeless skydaddy.

[GrandizerII]

Asserted without evidence.

How could a first cause be anything but an intentional act?

How could a first cause have intention? How do you account for the eternality of complexity in thinking stuff through and especially in an infinite manner?

Also, a being who intended the universe into existence must've taken some time to do so. But isn't time meant to first exist with the creation of the universe? So how could there have been time beforehand?

If your answer to this is that God created the universe spontaneously, then what's the point of intention? That would just be a random act.

[LostLocke]

The Kalam does mainly deal with first cause. Then we investigate what characteristics must the first cause have.

A... First, where's the rule book that says there must be a first cause?

B... Investigating the characteristics the first cause must have?
It mustn't have any characteristics. If it exists, it is what it is. It's not our right to tell it what we think it 'must' be.