These are the standard objections to argument #6 on the list provided here...
This is a variation of the Cosmological argument but originating from Islamic theologians. This is the version presented in the above link...
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.
- The cause is God
This argument is subject to many well know objections most of which demonstrate the the argument falls over at the first premise due to the assumption that the appearance of our universe is an event just like any other event, when this might not be the case.
Religious apologists state the premise as an axiomatic truth. The premise certainly appeals intuitively to our human experience, but we don't know if our intuitive experience applies to everything so it is not necessarily true to say that "whatever begins to exist has a cause." For example, it is possible that the universe is part of a multiverse which had no cause. Or any other number of explanations. We simply don't know.
(This is a basic flaw with all "uncaused cause" arguments which arbitrarily;y assign God as the uncaused cause. The uncaused cause - if there is a cause - could be anything. In addition, and as stated in argument #2, there is quantum evidence for different mechanisms for events, and this includes events with no cause, simultaneous causation, backward causation and so on. The other old argument here is the infinite regression which apologists arbitrarily claim stops with God simply to avoid the "who created God" argument.)
The second premise also seems obvious given the evidence of the Big Bang, but the appearance of our universe cannot necessarily be included in the "whatever" assumption of the first premise even if the first premise was true - which it might not be. As already explained, the "whatever" is based on our everyday observations of events within the universe. But the appearance of our universe is not an everyday event and is obviously not an event comparable to the events within itself and resulting from its existence. There is even an argument that the Big Bang is not a physical event at all because an event, by definition, occurs at a specific time and there was no time at the Big Bang. At least one mathematical model shows that as we rewind time the universe approaches the state of singularity but never actually reaches it and so has no beginning and hence no cause. Plus it's not just time that was absent at the Big Bang. Every physical law or mechanism that we identify with our everyday experience of events is absent at the Big Bang.
All of the above means the conclusion on line three does not necessarily follow. And of course the final statement that the "cause is God" is simply an assertion. It would be just as logical to say the cause is a vacuum fluctuation, or the Great Green Arkleseizure. Or gods. Or Odin, or any number of things.
One of the most well known and comprehensive refutations of the Kalam Argument is provided in chapter 8 of the book "Godless." Within the chapter on pages 131/132 is a simple mathematical refutation:
The clause “whatever begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: things that begin to exist (BE), and things that do not (NBE).
In order for this argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty. If NBE was empty it would mean that there is nothing that does not begin to exist, which means everything has a beginning, which means God would have a beginning.
So NBE cannot be empty, but also, it must contain more than one item. If we assume it only contains one item then we are creating a premise that says there is only one thing that does not begin to exist, which is what the argument is trying to prove. So that assumption would result in the fallacious argument of begging the question.
In other words, NBE must contain more than one item. which means that if the universe has a cause, there are several possibilities for the cause of the universe.
