The Cosmological Argument and Free Will

[orangebox21]

If naturalism is true, and thus determinism, then [within the context of this argument] the 'beginning of the universe' is in fact not the 'beginning' because the cause of the beginning of the universe would be an effect of a previous cause.

Correct. Material antecedents would mean that the big bang is not the absolute beginning of the Universe, though it may still be taken as a discontinuity so radical that we cannot explain it, because we can find no laws which we can extrapolate backwards through this discontinuity.

This would go on and on into infinite regress and the question would still remain, what is the first uncaused cause? This is a question unanswerable by determinism.

This is not even a logically sound question. It's like asking, "Can an omnipotent god create beings more powerful than her?" A "first" cause already presumes that you're talking about a finite starting point in time.

It is then an issue of explanatory power. Within the context of our conversation, determinism and naturalism offer no explanation for the beginning of the universe.

An eternal being fits the criteria of an 'uncaused first cause' and does have explanatory power.

Excuse me but has anyone shown that it is even possible that anything can always have existed which could then serve as a first cause?

If something exists it either began or always has existed.
The universe exists
Therefore the universe either began or always has existed.

If the universe has always existed then it must be shown to be.

If the universe began, and if we accept the causality principle then: the best explanation to the cause of the universe is an uncaused first cause. In other words, the existence of the universe makes the existence of an 'uncaused first cause' possible. This is what the cosmological argument asserts.

Pointing out the trouble for our concept of cause and effect if no such being existed is far from showing that such a being could exist. It may just be that our concept is incomplete or flawed.

Would you accept the argument: Of course God exists, if He cannot be proven to exist it's only because our concept of Him is incomplete or flawed?