I'm having a really rewarding discussion via youtube with a Catholic and he presented some variants of the Kalam argument to me. This is was my response.
Regarding the argument itself. I'm very rusty regarding debating formal theology, I have to research more into formal philosophy but I'm still unconvinced at the moment, but it has further inspired me to research into the argument further.
But some rudimentary objections from myself;
According to the argument God brought space-time, energy/matter, causality/time into existence.
A major problem is that when we speak/know of something existing energy/matter and causality/time are implicit in the term existence. However if religious people claim that God brought these things into existence and his existence transcends time/causality, space/matter and space-time, then they aren't referring to God existing in any intelligible sense of the word.
Therefore the argument tells us nothing about the nature of God, nor how to infer it. How would you derive God's attributes of omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence from that premise. Or that God, is the God of your particular religion.
We are able to observe and explain phenomena because they have an identity that is a consequence of space-time, time/causality, and space/matter.
So my basic objections are;
1) God doesn't exist in any meaningful sense of the word, and as a result isn't intelligible.
Even if it is valid it point to deism not theism, because the God of theism is a personal intervening force, yet the universe can be observed to operate with impersonal laws.
The cosmological argument IMO is based on inductive reasoning. We've only ever observed pre-existing things influence other pre-existing things in a chain of impersonal causality.
Stating that God willed something into existence is a meaningless use of a verb, you can equally use the term spilled into the universe into existence. Because the term will, refers to a conscious entity using it's intention to execute an action - a conscious entity that exists in space-time, energy/matter and causality/time. The verb will can't be applied to God because he transcends all those things, I think it's a meaningless use of the verb.
Also we can tell through observation that the God of theism is incredibly unlikely to exist, the universe operates due to a set of impersonal laws, and numinous experiences can be explained credibly by psychology and neurology.
Also I've watched the presentations from Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking showing how God is unnecessary (not impossible but unnecessary) to explain the origins of the big bang.
Here they are if you're interested;
Stephen Hawking - Did God create the universe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpb7NMR-XOoLawrence Krauss - A universe from nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIoI think Carl Sagan put it eloquently and concisely;
If we postulate that God created the universe and nothing created God, then why don't we save a step and say that nothing created the universe.
If we postulate that God always existence, then why don't we save a step and say that the universe always existed.
In my opinion the God of Theism is an unnecessary and superfluous explanation for the existence of any phenomena.
Topic: The Kalam Argument