Changes

Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

Note that the key phrase here is "''begins'' to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

Historically the atheistic counter argument was that the universe has always existed.  With the advent of the [[Big Bang Theory]] which indicates that the universe had a starting point, this line of defense became less tenable.   

The atheistic counter argument has traditionally been to point 2, taking the position that the universe has always existed.  With the advent of the [[Big Bang Theory]] pointing towards a starting point, this line of defense has become rather shaky.  It should also be noted that the Kalam argument removes one of the knee jerk reactions to any discussion on creation involving God which is "Then who created God?"  Since God has no beginning, the question becomes meaningless.

 

It should be noted that the Kalam argument attempts to avoid one of the usual responses to any discussion on creation involving God, which is "Then who created God?"  Since theists believe that God has no beginning, it follows to them that the question is no longer relevant as a result of the use of the phrase "whatever begins to exist".  However, by using that phrase in order to avoid that issue, proponents of this argument are merely seeking to redefine god as a thing that does not have a cause.  They do so without any supporting argument or explanation.  Whilst such a proposition is undoubtedly accepted by theists generally, it is not accepted by atheists and cannot be used as an unchallenged part of an argument for the existence of a god or gods.

 

The fundamental difficulty, however, is that whilst the proposition "whatever begins to exist has a cause" is clearly correct when applied to a clock, a mouse or a law suit (for example), it is unclear whether it is applicable to a universe.

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===

===[[Thomism|Thomistic]] cosmological argument===