(January 26, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: There is a subtlety to the Kalam proof most miss, there are two sets of rules, one for God, another for the natural world. In the natural world, all things are contingent, they must have a beginning and a creator. Bit God is a supernatural being that operates with separate rules. God is defined as not contingent.
Kalam type arguments assume there must be a basic foundation that all other things rely on for there contingent existence. But there is no reason that must be so, there may well be an infinite chain of contingency, cause and effect with no entity being eternal and foundational.
Its a case of argument by definition. There is no reason to accept theology's definitions as logically necessary nor proven. The Universe may well be the result of some basic material, and a few rules such as we see in Conway's Game of Life. See Stephan Wolfram et al for more.
There are other possible ways to approach things other than a supernatural God
There is no such thing as an infinite chain of anything.
The question whether the universe has a cause does not need theological definitions.