The Kalaam cosmological argument is a popular argument for God’s existence. But before you use it...

I personally find the moral argument for Gods existence more appealing than the Kalam argument. That being said, they work perfectely fine in tandem with one another. The usual counterposals when arguing out from Kalam is the retarded response: 1: Why does this "something" has to be a "someone"? Logic doesnt dictate that is has to be a subject they say...
Well I'll argue that its highly logical. Seen in the light of both Caos theory and the Cosmological argument for Gods existence, it appears dubious not to see cosmos as an act of an intelligent being. The universe is simply to fine tuned and complex for it to be a random cause or some impersonal initial force behind it all. Someone had to will it and to put it in motion.

The moral agrument is nice as it kind of forces us to take a closer look at our own perception of morality and why it matters. The human rights are considered universially good (despite its flaws) and why is that? Why are pedophilia, murder and teft bad while care and compassion is considered good? If there wasnt a normativity planted in the human mind this would be highly aribritrary. It boils down to preference and taste. That's the way Nietzsche saw it, but most people reject that sort of extreme nihilism. So why do we consider morality relatively stable? Functionalism? Nah, the nazi state was efficient and well driven in many ways. A well oiled machine. Despite this something was considered instrictively wrong in Nazi Germany. Why is that? And how come we all see it that way?

Getting people to believe in Gods existence is not the trickiest part though. It kind of follows from logic. The trick is to get their universal view of God to turn into a christological one. There are several good arguments for that, but human logic only get you so far. This is where the leap of faith must be taken according to Soren Kierkegaard, and I believe he's right.

We should not be overconfident is using any philosophical arguments with unbelievers. We are witnesses and gatherers. We do not cause the seeds of faith to grow anymore than a farmer grows his crops cell by cell. We plant, water and harvest. God alone gives the increase.

That being said, it is well worth the while to study Thomas Aquinas and see plainly that knowledge of the existence of God can be arrived at by reason. Our faith is not pure fairy tale as charged by the mockers that put forth the flying spaghetti monster and his noodley appendage. Reason can be used with men of good will, those that are willing to learn. To the rest we must display virtue.
Of the seven virtues, the first three come from God alone. Those are Faith, Hope, and Charity. The remaining four require human effort in cooperation with God's grace to be brought forth. The four cardinal virtues are Justice, Temperance, Prudence, and Fortitude. They take study and disciplined to be fully developed, but it is possible and well worth it. Narrow is the way, straight is the gate that leads to life, and few find it. Without developed virtue, we become ineffective witnesses. How can we plead others to repent, if we have not repented ourselves?

I once tried to show someone the futility of belief in an earthly paradise by arguing our mortality. Why put your faith in Earth if we are only here for about a hundred years? They looked at me like I have five heads, and said humans have been here for millions of years, it's science. I tried to explain that I was referring to our own life, as the psalmist says we have 70 years, 80 for the strong, then the years fly away. It did no good, they did not care. I do admit that at that time, I was not very virtuous. Not only watch what you say, but how you say it

God bless you