The Kalam Cosmological argument.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

1. Virtual particles apparently begin to exist without a cause.
2. Causality is inferred from observing events in the universe, it's a fallacy of composition to assume that causality applies to the universe itself. Also, the universe may have existed eternally in some form, with the Big Bang marking a transformation, not a true beginning.
3. Due to the weakness of 1. and 2., 3 is an unjustifed conclusion.
4. If the universe has a cause, it doesn't follow from the previous steps that this cause is eternal or a person. It could be an uncaused event that triggered the formation of the universe, as in the vaccuum fluctuation hypothesis popularized by Victor Stenger.

I do think you may have a point that quantum foam has some of the attributes ascribed to God: timeless, creative, powerful, containing all information. Eternal even, since quantum foam can't not exist. Sadly, quantum foam remains hypothetical for now since we lack the means to test it.