For those unaware, the Kalam argument was re-popularized by the apologist and heavyweight debater William Lane Craig. Most of the above comments have been answered in one way or another (satisfactory or not) in his writings and debates.
Shadowhawk, have you read The Fallacy of Fine Tuning by Stenger, which includes his critique of Craig's (mis)use of the BGV theorem?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.
Saying someone disagrees with this reasoning says nothing about its truth. So? The KALAM has long been debated. Let me expand the argument to include a designer. So if you want to avoid the conclusions of these arguments, you must reject at least one of their premises as false. So I invite you to tell me: which premise do you reject and why? Don’t hide behind insults; engage the arguments. We have has so many verbal attacks here that real discussion is impossible. Thanks for your civility.
The BIRDE GUTH VILENKIN THEOREM wad something I mentioned earlier The origin of the universe is confirmed by philosophical arguments and scientific evidence.
There cannot be an actual infinite number of past events, because mathematical operations like subtraction and division cannot be applied to actual infinities. There are other reasons but I won’t go there unless someone else does.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past. When one thinks about it, I think this goes for movement in general. This has a unrecognized impact on the Origin of life as well but I am getting off topic.
I have not read the article by Stenger but here is a recent debate with Craig. Very good point on the BGV .
Quoted from a commenter "Matt" on World Press:
http://debunkingwlc....-guth-vilenkin/
Science is provisional–so of course the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin theorem doesn’t prove that the universe had a beginning, but it does show that it’s more plausible than our universe having no beginning.
So Shadow I can push this all the way back to line 2:
2. The universe begin to exist.
We don't know that. It's plausible but we still don't know. We still need to figure that out and we need a much more solid foundation to press further into the debate.
If however we accept 2, 3, and 4 for arguments sake I would still have issue with 5. Why dismiss physical necessity and chance? Ok you’re arguing from a theological standpoint however what are their reasons for outright dismissing physical necessity and chance?