God exist, and belief in His existence is rationally justified.

As Con it is my job to negate the arguments. Kalam Cosmological Argument:1.) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.2.) The universe began to exist.3.) Therefore the universe had a cause.I'm not sure why people think this argument is good.Well I'm going to challenge both premises.On P1:Well first, there is no way to know if P1 is true.However, P1 is not true.If it's the case that I can find one instance in which something begins without a cause, then P1 fails.Virtual particles come into existence from nothing all the time. The first test was conducted in the 1940's. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the . Each photon shall spend time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle--the virtual positron. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that appearto have equal energy. However,when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions.Further more a vacuum yields protons. And this has been empirically observed "The researchers began with an array of 250 superconducting quantum-interference devices, or SQUIDs—circuits that are extraordinarily sensitive to magnetic fields. They inserted the array inside a refrigerator. By carefully exerting magnetic fields on this array, they could vary the speed at which microwave photons traveled through it by a few percent. The researchers then cooled this array to 50 thousandths of a degree Celsius above absolute zero. Because this environment is supercold, it should not emit any radiation, essentially behaving as a vacuum. "We were simply studying these circuits for the purpose of developing an amplifier, which we did," says researcher Sorin Paraoanu, a theoretical physicist at Aalto University. "But then we asked ourselves—what if there is no signal to amplify? What happens if the vacuum is the signal?"The researchers detected photons that matched predictions from the dynamical Casimir effect."So P1 fails. However even if everything that began to exist, had a cause, one could not say that the universe has a cause.It's a composition fallacy.P1) Things that begin to exist in the universe have a causeP2) The universe began to existC) The universe has a cause The conclusion does not follow from the premises because it presumes the universe is like things in the universe. Pro says: " But I then would ask you why is the tea there in the first place? You would say something like "Someone wanted tea so they put it there." Which would be an example of agent causation. "Once again this is a composition fallacy. Just because somethings in the universe have purpose, does not mean the universe has purpose. No observations support the assertion that there is purpose in the universe. On P2: Eternal/Acausal Models-The Oscillating UniverseThis is a self-contained model in which the universe evolves from a big bang, then expands and expands and then collapses upon it's self and then re-expands. This model is perfectly self-contained and no god is needed. -Hartle Hawking QET:Any universe that is described by quantum mechanics with non-zero energy and a time independent Hamiltonian is eternal in both arrows of time.Ekpyrotic Universe: "...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension."The point isn't that any of these are the right model, rather that there are self contained models.Could a being create the universe?NO. If the universe began to exist, then space and time came into being with the universe.In order for a being to create the universe, the being would have to create the universe in no space and time.This being would exist in no space and no time. If a being has no value in space or time, it does not exists.http://www.scientificamerican.com... not enough room to site sources :(