The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be logically refuted, using the same logic as the argument itelf

The Kalam Cosmological ArgumentClassical argumentP1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence;P3: The universe has a cause of its existence.P4: Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the originof the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)William Lane Craig's reformulated argumentP1: Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause.P2: The universe began to exist.P3: Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.P4: This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.Both arguments attempt to provide logical evidence of a personal creator, either argument can be logically refuted using the same logical formula that the argument itself provides.My first refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument P1: A cause = A force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in timeP2: Nature, matter and time did not exist until after the universe began to existP3: For a cause of the beginning of the universe to be possible, the properties which make a cause possible musthave been present "before" the universe began to existP4: The properties needed that make a cause possible did not exist "before" the universe began to exist (there is no proof that a "before" the universe is even possible)P5: The universe's beginning had no cause, cause and effect is only something that occurs once the universe already exists.P6: If nothing caused the universe to exist, then a personal creator of the universe does not existP7: A personal God does not existExplanation:Based on observation of the universe every cause is a force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matterthat precedes it's effect in time. For example, if someone asked "what caused that book to fall over?", I couldrespond with "my arm moved and knocked it off the table". Now the arm moving would be a re-arangement of matter, and it would have to precede the effect in time. Another example would be if an asteroid was pulled into Earth's atmosphere and someone asked "what is causing that?", I could respond with "gravity". Now gravity is a force of nature acting on matter (the asteroid). Basically, all examples of causes are either a force of nature that acts on matter, or a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time. There is no logical reasonto think that a cause can exist without a force or nature, matter, and time. Based on The Big Bang Theory (the same theory people who advocate The Kalam Cosmological Argument use to support the universe had a beginning in the first place), the forces of nature like gravity, matter and not even time existed until after The Big Bang. Since all observation concludes that we need these 3 things for causes to exist, then the universe'sbeginning had no initial cause. If there was no cause there can be no personal cause, therefore, no personal God.My second refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (This is refutation argument was made famous by Quentin Smith in 1992)P1: The Big Bang singularity is the earliest state of the universeP2: The earliest state of the universe is inanimateP3: No law governs the big bang singularity, so consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.P4: A personal God would ensure the singularity contained properties which would guarantee that it involvedinto an animate universeP5: A personal God did not create the singularity.P6. A personal God does not existExplanation:Based on The Big Bang Theory, there was no guarantee that the universe would turn out in a way that would support life and a personal God would have made sure it did. A personal God did not create the universe and therefore, does not exist.My third refutation of the Kalam Cosmological ArgumentP1: At the sub-atomic level, virtual particles "begin to exist" uncausedP2: We know these fluctuations are uncaused, because of the Bell's Theorem which tells us that there are no hidden variables causing themP3: The universe was in a hot dense state smaller than a proton 13.7 billion years ago, if this hot dense state could be measured, it would be at the sub-atomic levelP4: Since things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused, there is no reason to believe the universe's existencehad a causeP5: There is no reason to believe a personal God created the universeP6: There is no reason to believe a personal God existsExplanation:Quantum Mechanics tells us that things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused all the time(as explained by Bell's Inequalities). If the state the universe was in 13.7 billion years ago could be measured it would be at the sub-atomic level, therefore it is more likely that the universe was uncaused rather than caused. If the universe was uncaused, then there could be no personal creator (God) which existed or exists. Conclusion:I have logically refutted the Kalam Cosmological Argument using the same logical formula as the argument itself using 3 separate arguments (only 1 of these arguments needed to be presented for me to have met my burden). Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.infidels.org...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...