Kalaam Cosmological Argument

[Archaeopteryx]

I am a convinced theist. My concern is not whether God exists, but whether this particular argument offers us anything useful.

My primary frustration here is the failure to define God and explicitly argue from a cause of the universe to anything resembling that definition. It's a formal fallacy, and the sort of thing that drives non-theists nuts, so the missing steps ought to be filled in, or the argument will say nothing even if it succeeds.

This is an excellent point, and to their credit, many theist philosophers do attempt to argue that God is the cause by offering follow-up arguments that go beyond the three lines of the KCA. However, in my experience, especially on this forum, apologists rarely present these follow-up arguments for consideration and simply leap from the conclusion of the KCA, or some other cosmological argument, to theism. What's frustrating is that when one points out that this is what they've done, and that more work is needed to get from the argument's conclusion to theism, they sometimes respond with incredulity, or worse, accuse you of being irrational.

 

[46AND2]

This is an excellent point, and to their credit, many theist philosophers do attempt to argue that God is the cause by offering follow-up arguments that go beyond the three lines of the KCA. However, in my experience, especially on this forum, apologists rarely present these follow-up arguments for consideration and simply leap from the conclusion of the KCA, or some other cosmological argument, to theism. What's frustrating is that when one points out that this is what they've done, and that more work is needed to get from the argument's conclusion to theism, they sometimes respond with incredulity, or worse, accuse you of being irrational.

Agreed. For example, WLC argues that there are 3 possibilities for the nature of the beginning of the universe in premise 2.

1. The universe began through creatio ex nihilo via god.
2. It began creatio ex nihilo via nature.
3. It is eternal.

Then he argues in favor of number 1, giving his reasons why.

My issue with this thread, as you say, is that it deals only with the base KCA, without any argumentation for the additional justifications required for the the "therefore, god" conclusion.

The base argument, even if it was logically sound, is not enough.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Agreed. For example, WLC argues that there are 3 possibilities for the nature of the beginning of the universe in premise 2.

1. The universe began through creatio ex nihilo via god.
2. It began creatio ex nihilo via nature.
3. It is eternal.

Then he argues in favor of number 1, giving his reasons why.

My issue with this thread, as you say, is that it deals only with the base KCA, without any argumentation for the additional justifications required for the the "therefore, god" conclusion.

The base argument, even if it was logically sound, is not enough.

And, he ignores the possibility that there never was a state of ex nihilo

 

[Halbhh]

If a being is outside time then it seems to me that it would be static - like a pet rock. Maybe this matches the experience of many seekers who finally give up. Praying might be like talking to your pet rock. A good old reliable rock - the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Is that what we seek in God? Not me.

For God to be a living being he must exist in some sort of time IMO.

If I pray to God and he laughs at me is he always laughing at me - even before I prayed and even after I die? Is that a relationship? ... IDK

Consider: He's alive as the basic thing we know, is a Being (so the whole questions about time are not related ultimately, they are more like speculations)
What I found when I finally decided to seek God the way Christ said (Matthew 7 NIV (and Jeremiah 29:13)) was shocking to me -- a response to my prayer, which I hadn't thought would be so definite. I had imagined instead something subtle (which is of course quite possible too). I had thought God would be above responding to us in such a direct way, but before the door opens to the one knocking, they have to have a leap of faith, right?, because how can you knock on a otherly door without even doing the otherly of a leap of faith? But as you see in the Jeremiah verse I mentioned above, it's gotta be a real seeking. It's like a door that is always there, but a person has to truly turn toward the door. (in contrast to not turn towards the door might look like merely saying 'ok God if you exist then prove it' -- just assuming in your heart/mind there would be no response (a not-leap-of-faith way). The leap of faith is an act of trust on some level, it's...risky, feels risky in some sense, and not just a small risk, but that all-in kind)

 

[46AND2]

And, he ignores the possibility that there never was a state of ex nihilo

Yes. One of the biggest problems with his argument is that it assumes a nothingness state. I don't agree with his trichotomy, either.

 

[Halbhh]

The ground of reality that exists necessarily of its own nature. Intellect, will, and some degree of separation from created reality are required as well, or we're dealing with one of the alternatives to theism. (I would probably add in some additional scholastic ideas, but this isn't strictly necessary.)



No, I don't think they're equally arbitrary. If one is going to add an additional attribute to the concept of Necessary Existence, there should be a reason. Failing to add that additional attribute doesn't have to mean denying it--it could simply mean a position of agnosticism.

Now, I do think that revelation is an acceptable basis upon which to make statements about God, as long as that revelation is coherent and consistent with reality, but you're not going to impress anyone who doesn't already accept said revelation by doing so.



I am a convinced theist. My concern is not whether God exists, but whether this particular argument offers us anything useful.

My primary frustration here is the failure to define God and explicitly argue from a cause of the universe to anything resembling that definition. It's a formal fallacy, and the sort of thing that drives non-theists nuts, so the missing steps ought to be filled in, or the argument will say nothing even if it succeeds.

ah. Well, about any arguing about God existing in a way to reach a definite yes or no -- proving or disproving -- that is precluded, isn't possible as best I know, in that God is a Being, a Person if you will (in some way which we are told is rather higher than our young selves (Isaiah 55 NIV).

And that implies we cannot contact Him unless He freely chooses to respond. -- Ergo, He won't allow us to merely prove He exists and then in even a cynical or unloving way just then self-interestedly apply His other wordings to get the outcomes He said would happen (which He keeps). Instead, we have to meet His standard for Him to open the door -- as you'd expect from a Being. So, it's like Jesus says in Matthew 7 NIV -- faith: we have to seek, and knock, a leap of faith, because that's the standard He has set to open the door. A kind of willingness to surrender in the heart to trust and true seeking:Jeremiah 29:13 You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. Consider: Jesus is so well known because of His words, for one thing. If you were asking: How would I contact God (not merely another energy but the One true God), then you'd want to consider what the one who knew better than anyone else said.

 

[Silmarien]

This is an excellent point, and to their credit, many theist philosophers do attempt to argue that God is the cause by offering follow-up arguments that go beyond the three lines of the KCA. However, in my experience, especially on this forum, apologists rarely present these follow-up arguments for consideration and simply leap from the conclusion of the KCA, or some other cosmological argument, to theism. What's frustrating is that when one points out that this is what they've done, and that more work is needed to get from the argument's conclusion to theism, they sometimes respond with incredulity, or worse, accuse you of being irrational.

Oh, yes. My primary interest is philosophy of religion rather than apologetics, so I tend to take it for granted that reasoning will be carried out in its entirety. And that serious challenges will come from other theists, not just non-theists. (And the occasional non-theist will turn around and construct their own argument--weird, but cool.)

I usually go after non-theists around here for claiming that all theistic arguments are logically flawed, since the only genuine question in a well-crafted argument is whether the premises are true, but the last time I got embroiled in an argument over the Kalam, I was given a link to a video on William Craig's Youtube channel about it. It wasn't terrible, but the lack of explicit reasoning from "the universe has a cause" to "God exists" was shocking. I can't blame the atheists for tossing around caricatures when they're getting them from a professional apologist.

I can make exceptions for amateur apologists--my preferred apologetic method is book recommendations, since this is probably the most abstract and difficult philosophical dispute out there, but Craig should know better. He's a public intellectual and should not be taking logical shortcuts in his popular work that he would not in his professional work.

(I also don't like the Kalam, but that is a different issue.)

 

[zippy2006]

Except that I'm quite explicitly critiquing an argument where the unspecified premises are not in place.

This strikes me as nitpicking. Not all premises need to be stated explicitly; all arguments have implicit premises.

My primary frustration here is the failure to define God and explicitly argue from a cause of the universe to anything resembling that definition.

Does it really need to be explicitly stated that God is defined as the creator of the universe? Is anyone confused on that point?

I don't like the Kalam, but the strength or weakness of the argument will derive from the defense of the premises. For example, what is meant by terms such as "universe" and "cause"? Is the creation thought to be ex nihilo? Judging the argument without sorting out these questions is too quick.

And as I said earlier, a posteriori arguments for the existence of God all run up against the fact that the conclusion will not terminate in a full, classical conception of God's essence. Each argument indicates only one variable or aspect of that nature. In this case the attempted attribute is creator/cause.

 

[Silmarien]

This strikes me as nitpicking. Not all premises need to be stated explicitly; all arguments have implicit premises.

Let's look again at the form of the argument as presented on the first page (and this is a criticism of William Craig rather than Tree of Life, since I know that the layout of the argument comes from Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If we were merely trying to demonstrate that the universe had a cause, this would be acceptable logic, but there is an implicit jump here all the way to a fully attributed concept of God. This is the way Craig sets up the argument: he explicitly argues for the two premises here, and then pulls a bait and switch and concludes that an immaterial, immensely powerful, personal, uncaused and eternal cause is the best candidate. I have seen him do this, and it's not nitpicking to say that this is too much, too fast. I do not condone skipping steps of this magnitude.

Does it really need to be explicitly stated that God is defined as the creator of the universe? Is anyone confused on that point?

Honestly, that would be a terribly vague definition. We might as well get really tautological, define God as "cause of the universe," and ignore the question of whether this means that God will turn out to be a subatomic particle.

I don't like the Kalam, but the strength or weakness of the argument will derive from the defense of the premises. For example, what is meant by terms such as "universe" and "cause"? Is the creation thought to be ex nihilo? Judging the argument without sorting out these questions is too quick.

I disagree. If an argument is not valid, then there is no point in determining whether or not it is sound. If someone wants to simply demonstrate that the universe has a cause, then we could look at the premises. But if their conclusion is that God exists, then we can cry foul immediately, because even if the premises are correct, the logic doesn't get us to the declared conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with arguments that don't get all the way to God. I like PSR, for example, but I don't think it gets us to theism. That's fine, as long as someone doesn't tack on, "Therefore, God exists" at the end. I get tired of having to explicitly state that I'm not trying to get all the way to the theistic conclusion whenever I discuss a cosmological argument because people have been trained to expect the bait and switch.

And as I said earlier, a posteriori arguments for the existence of God all run up against the fact that the conclusion will not terminate in a full, classical conception of God's essence. Each argument indicates only one variable or aspect of that nature. In this case the attempted attribute is creator/cause.

If this were a classical argument, and limited itself to the attempted demonstration of one attribute, then I would not have a problem with it. (Or at least, I would not have this particular problem with it.)

William Craig is not a classical theist, however. He doesn't argue like a Thomist, one attribute at a time. This is very much intended to be a full abductive argument for the existence of God, and should be treated as such. I think you might have a blind spot here because of your Catholicism--the rest of us were taught to think in abductive terms rather than in demonstrating attributes. The universe needs a cause, therefore the best bet is that this magical entity we call God exists.

We're not being difficult, and we're not nitpicking. It's a really obvious non sequitur, and it poisons everything. There's a reason the first Christian I took seriously was Kierkegaard, and even after that, my relationship with natural theology was a trainwreck for years because of how arbitrary the whole intellectual tradition used to seem. This is a genuine problem in apologetics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's look again at the form of the argument as presented on the first page (and this is a criticism of William Craig rather than Tree of Life, since I know that the layout of the argument comes from Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If we were merely trying to demonstrate that the universe had a cause, this would be acceptable logic, but there is an implicit jump here all the way to a fully attributed concept of God. This is the way Craig sets up the argument: he explicitly argues for the two premises here, and then pulls a bait and switch and concludes that an immaterial, immensely powerful, personal, uncaused and eternal cause is the best candidate. I have seen him do this, and it's not nitpicking to say that this is too much, too fast. I do not condone skipping steps of this magnitude.



Honestly, that would be a terribly vague definition. We might as well get really tautological, define God as "cause of the universe," and ignore the question of whether this means that God will turn out to be a subatomic particle.



I disagree. If an argument is not valid, then there is no point in determining whether or not it is sound. If someone wants to simply demonstrate that the universe has a cause, then we could look at the premises. But if their conclusion is that God exists, then we can cry foul immediately, because even if the premises are correct, the logic doesn't get us to the declared conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with arguments that don't get all the way to God. I like PSR, for example, but I don't think it gets us to theism. That's fine, as long as someone doesn't tack on, "Therefore, God exists" at the end. I get tired of having to explicitly state that I'm not trying to get all the way to the theistic conclusion whenever I discuss a cosmological argument because people have been trained to expect the bait and switch.



If this were a classical argument, and limited itself to the attempted demonstration of one attribute, then I would not have a problem with it. (Or at least, I would not have this particular problem with it.)

William Craig is not a classical theist, however. He doesn't argue like a Thomist, one attribute at a time. This is very much intended to be a full abductive argument for the existence of God, and should be treated as such. I think you might have a blind spot here because of your Catholicism--the rest of us were taught to think in abductive terms rather than in demonstrating attributes. The universe needs a cause, therefore the best bet is that this magical entity we call God exists.

We're not being difficult, and we're not nitpicking. It's a really obvious non sequitur, and it poisons everything. There's a reason the first Christian I took seriously was Kierkegaard, and even after that, my relationship with natural theology was a trainwreck for years because of how arbitrary the whole intellectual tradition used to seem. This is a genuine problem in apologetics.

In reading through your response here, Sil--and since I'm just not that familiar with Craig's overall set of arguments for this or that notion of Cosmological sensibilities ('cuz I start with Lee Smolin rather than with WLC), not to mention the Kalaam argument specifically-- I began to imagine and wonder as to just what WLC would say to us [you? ] at this point, taking your criticisms, or something very much akin to your criticisms, in tow.

And in pondering this over, I think I've found something that helps me visualize what Craig would say to those of us who think his Kalaam is a bunch of hooey. In the following video, Craig explains that he thinks the Kalaam is a 'deductive' argument which is to be presented within certain strictures of a valid deductive process, and he maintains the assumption in his argumentation that we should have a preference for an A-theory of time as opposed to a B-theory of time. This he seems to outline in the first 8 or 9 minutes of the video below. I haven't watched the rest of it, but I will...so don't shoot the messenger, at least not yet.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In reading through your response here, Sil--and since I'm just not that familiar with Craig's overall set of arguments for this or that notion of Cosmological sensibilities ('cuz I start with Lee Smolin rather than with WLC), not to mention the Kalaam argument specifically-- I began to imagine and wonder as to just what WLC would say to us [you? ] at this point, taking your criticisms, or something very much akin to your criticisms, in tow.

And in pondering this over, I think I've found something that helps me visualize what Craig would say to those of us who think his Kalaam is a bunch of hooey. In the following video, Craig explains that he thinks the Kalaam is a 'deductive' argument which is to be presented within certain strictures of a valid deductive process, and he maintains the assumption in his argumentation that we should have a preference for an A-theory of time as opposed to a B-theory of time. This he seems to outline in the first 7 or 8 minutes of the video below. I haven't watched the rest of it, but I will...so don't shoot the messenger, at least not yet.

I haven't watched the video yet either, but it's interesting to me that professional apologists often neglect to mention some of the deeper issues relevant to the debate (e.g., the metaphysics of time) when presenting such arguments to the faithful. Craig is a philosopher, and he engages with these issues—either in papers, book chapters, or at conferences—but almost never mentions them when the intended audience or readership consists primarily of the faithful. It's almost as if there is a clear divide between his philosophical activity and his ministerial (or apologetics) activity. You might say, well, why not?—why shouldn't his presentation change based on who the audience is? I don't know if that's a good counterargument, but it seems to me to suggest a tension of sorts between being a philosopher on the one hand and an apologist on the other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I haven't watched the video yet either, but it's interesting to me that professional apologists often neglect to mention some of the deeper issues relevant to the debate (e.g., the metaphysics of time) when presenting such arguments to the faithful. Craig is a philosopher, and he engages with these issues—either in papers, book chapters, or at conferences—but almost never mentions them when the intended audience or readership consists primarily of the faithful. It's almost as if there is a clear divide between his philosophical activity and his ministerial (or apologetics) activity. You might say, well, why not?—why shouldn't his presentation change based on who the audience is? I don't know if that's a good counterargument, but it seems to me to suggest a tension of sorts between being a philosopher on the one hand and an apologist on the other.

...well, you have a good point, Arch. Like you and Sil, I too have noticed that a number of Christian apologists more often than not seem to give a, shall we say, "lighter" set of arguments when addressing the faithful. [In fact, it has been said that I've been doing the same...........] But, could this be that they realize that a lot of people, even Christians, haven't had the opportunity to study at higher levels of education? I mean, obviously a number of us debating among ourselves here on CF either have formal dalliances in higher education or are just plain bright individuals who have been doing some in-depth reading. However, a larger portion of the population is lucky to have what is statistically anything higher than a high school education (or less), and they wouldn't understand all of the more advance nitty-gritty. No, in their cases, they will need the apologetics package delivered to them in what is more or less at a "baby food" level so they can attempt to understand and gain some benefit from what is being said by the apologist.

I know that for a person like you, the typical Christian Apologetics package seems to come as a case of "too little, too simple, too late," but this probably shouldn't be too surprising since the books and other media productions are a part of what is basically a market industry and are articulated in ways to 'sell' to the masses. However, from what I understand in the video I posted above, Craig has written some books that are supposed to address these apologetics issues, like that of the Kalaam, at a higher academic level. It's just who wants to plunk down $20 plus bucks to buys those works ... ?

Anyway, yes there is a tension between being a philosopher on the one hand, and an apologist on the other, but I think there's a tension to the whole 'deep thinking' project that some of us, a seeming minority of us, undertake, and that tension is that not only do the masses simply not understand the deeper nitty-gritty, but they're not really concerned with it either. So, this means that those of us like you and me (and a dozen others here in the Apologetics forum section) are talking up, down, and past a large part of the rest of the population; and this then affects the quality of Christian Apologetics. Why? Because Christian Apologetics is a sub-category of sorts of the overall Philosophy Project, a project that has a long history of having a lack of interest among the greater portion of humanity, as Norman Cantor (2003) mentions in one of his books, Antiquity, and this general disinterest goes all the way back to ancient times.

 

[durangodawood]

....the only genuine question in a well-crafted argument is whether the premises are true.....

Thats where I'm at with Kalam.

But it goes further. Not only are the premises undecidable. But even if true, the dont necessarily indicate anything like a god being.

I find it an appallingly bad argument.

In fact I'm starting to think that all attempts at rigorous theological argument are doomed by the necessity to assert strong premises regarding the unknown.

 

[Halbhh]

Thats where I'm at with Kalam.

But it goes further. Not only are the premises undecidable. But even if true, the dont necessarily indicate anything like a god being.

I find it an appallingly bad argument.

In fact I'm starting to think that all attempts at rigorous theological argument are doomed by the necessity to assert strong premises regarding the unknown.

I agree. It's interesting to most, but not at all conclusive of anything about God.

And God Himself would have already considered such avenues to Him, and closed many (all?) of them, for the reason in post #106 just above.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's look again at the form of the argument as presented on the first page (and this is a criticism of William Craig rather than Tree of Life, since I know that the layout of the argument comes from Craig):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If we were merely trying to demonstrate that the universe had a cause, this would be acceptable logic, but there is an implicit jump here all the way to a fully attributed concept of God. This is the way Craig sets up the argument: he explicitly argues for the two premises here, and then pulls a bait and switch and concludes that an immaterial, immensely powerful, personal, uncaused and eternal cause is the best candidate. I have seen him do this, and it's not nitpicking to say that this is too much, too fast. I do not condone skipping steps of this magnitude.

Craig doesn't commit the "bait and switch" even on the Wikipedia representation. Here is a longer analysis of his approach, which also avoids the fallacy.

Honestly, that would be a terribly vague definition. We might as well get really tautological, define God as "cause of the universe," and ignore the question of whether this means that God will turn out to be a subatomic particle.

Again, it's not an a priori argument. The proximate argument terminates in a specific divine characteristic, and then further argumentation is usually undergone to draw out further implications.

I disagree. If an argument is not valid, then there is no point in determining whether or not it is sound.

The three-step argument in the OP is valid. There is no doubting that.

There is nothing wrong with arguments that don't get all the way to God. I like PSR, for example, but I don't think it gets us to theism. That's fine, as long as someone doesn't tack on, "Therefore, God exists" at the end. I get tired of having to explicitly state that I'm not trying to get all the way to the theistic conclusion whenever I discuss a cosmological argument because people have been trained to expect the bait and switch.

But to be honest, I don't find your retort compelling. There is a good chance a quantum vacuum is ruled out by premise (2), as being part of the universe itself.

If this were a classical argument, and limited itself to the attempted demonstration of one attribute, then I would not have a problem with it. (Or at least, I would not have this particular problem with it.)

Okay.

William Craig is not a classical theist, however. He doesn't argue like a Thomist, one attribute at a time. This is very much intended to be a full abductive argument for the existence of God, and should be treated as such. I think you might have a blind spot here because of your Catholicism--the rest of us were taught to think in abductive terms rather than in demonstrating attributes. The universe needs a cause, therefore the best bet is that this magical entity we call God exists.

Either that or Craig's doctoral dissertation yielded more than a three-step argument.

 

[zippy2006]

I haven't watched the video yet either, but it's interesting to me that professional apologists often neglect to mention some of the deeper issues relevant to the debate (e.g., the metaphysics of time) when presenting such arguments to the faithful. Craig is a philosopher, and he engages with these issues—either in papers, book chapters, or at conferences—but almost never mentions them when the intended audience or readership consists primarily of the faithful. It's almost as if there is a clear divide between his philosophical activity and his ministerial (or apologetics) activity. You might say, well, why not?—why shouldn't his presentation change based on who the audience is? I don't know if that's a good counterargument, but it seems to me to suggest a tension of sorts between being a philosopher on the one hand and an apologist on the other.

What I would say is, "Well, why not? Why shouldn't his presentation change based on who the audience is?"

Craig has written books and articles on this topic, he has done talks and debates, and each of these endeavors is doubtless aimed at a different audience.

 

[Halbhh]

Craig doesn't commit the "bait and switch" even on the Wikipedia representation. Here is a longer analysis of his approach, which also avoids the fallacy.



Again, it's not an a priori argument. The proximate argument terminates in a specific divine characteristic, and then further argumentation is usually undergone to draw out further implications.



The three-step argument in the OP is valid. There is no doubting that.



But to be honest, I don't find your retort compelling. We could adjust the amateur version:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
4. The cause is either something which transcends the universe or else a quantum vacuum
5. A quantum vacuum is, by definition, part of the universe
6. Therefore the cause transcends the universe

In all likelihood a quantum vacuum is ruled out by premise (2).



Okay.



Either that or Craig's doctoral thesis yielded more than a three-step argument.

Hello, my background includes physics, and also cosmology has been a lifelong interest. When physicists say "the Universe" they will mean this particular one we are in, and we do not use the word to represent all universes or all that exists (should there be more, which itself is an area of intense speculation and many theories). But (as you probably agree), it's not changing the basic argument about what causes anything to exist at all (what caused the already existing something before this time in this Universe began). When I think of that, I think of how God responded to Moses, written down so many thousands of years ago:

"Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

It's interesting though isn't it that He answered this question this way those many thousands of years back, yes? Long before our modern ways of discussing. Existence Itself sent Moses to the Israelites. The One God. Our Father.

But about whether one could prove God, I think that's precluded, for the reason in post #106

 

[Silmarien]

Craig doesn't commit the "bait and switch" even on the Wikipedia representation. Here is a longer analysis of his approach, which also avoids the fallacy.

Honestly, this is still extremely sloppy logic. There may not be a formal fallacy in it, but only because there's no real logical structure in the conclusion at all. More than one syllogism ought to be in play here--additional arguments that are at least as crucial and controversial as the main one should not be tacked on at the end like an afterthought.

I am sorry, but I have much higher standards for logical analysis than this. If you can't rigorously defend your argument all the way through to its conclusion, I am still going to call it a bait and switch.

Again, it's not an a priori argument. The proximate argument terminates in a specific divine characteristic, and then further argumentation is usually undergone to draw out further implications.

Amongst Thomists, this would be true. But this is not a Thomistic argument, and even in the link you posted above, there is no attempt in it to demonstrate a specific divine characteristic, except at the very end where he tosses them all in at once.

I do agree that further argumentation is necessary to draw out further implications--that has been my point all along. A deeper analysis of causality and necessity is required here.

The three-step argument in the OP is valid. There is no doubting that.

It would be valid if its conclusion were merely that the universe was caused. Unfortunately, it's very clear that the actual conclusion is that God is the cause of the universe, and you cannot leave a conclusion implicit and still have a valid argument for that conclusion.

But to be honest, I don't find your retort compelling. There is a good chance a quantum vacuum is ruled out by premise (2), as being part of the universe itself.

Quantum vacuum as an alternative to God? I don't find it compelling either, but more rigorous logic would be required to rule it out because of premise (2). If the entire argument turns upon implicit premises (in this case, what is meant by the word "universe"), that is a problem with the format of the argument. You're just demonstrating more issues with the logical structure here.

[edit] I see you edited a new syllogism out of your post. Just a brief comment on the unedited version: this is my whole point. The amateur syllogism (which is actually Craig's syllogism) needs to be adjusted to say anything meaningful. There is a reason I keep on criticizing the form of this argument: it needs to be more robust before it's even worth discussing at all.

Either that or Craig's doctoral dissertation yielded more than a three-step argument.

No doubt. He should have enough respect for the public that his popular version of the argument also yielded more than a three-step argument. Especially if his ultimate audience is non-believers. Anticipating rather than exacerbating their concerns is literally his job.

 

[zippy2006]

Honestly, this is still extremely sloppy logic. There may not be a formal fallacy in it, but only because there's no real logical structure in the conclusion at all. More than one syllogism ought to be in play here--additional arguments that are at least as crucial and controversial as the main one should not be tacked on at the end like an afterthought.

I disagree, and what he says there is pretty much what I expected; if you give the argument the benefit of the doubt you naturally assume those arguments. Here is a central paragraph of his defense of the conclusion:

What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy.​

...and he goes on to argue that the first cause is personal.

No doubt. He should have enough respect for the public that his popular version of the argument also yielded more than a three-step argument. Especially if his ultimate audience is non-believers. Anticipating rather than exacerbating their concerns is literally his job.

You're especially fiery of late.

I don't like the Kalam because of its tendency to see God as a particular being possessing existence alongside other existing beings, but I don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be. Interestingly, Craig's defense has generated more scholarly articles than any other argument for the existence of God.

 

[childeye 2]

While this argument is not universally persuasive, I do believe that it is an effective argument for God's existence. This is to say that the premises and conclusions are more plausible than their negations. Let's take a look at this argument in this thread and hash it out. Here is a simple form of the argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

The argument looks sound and valid to me. Conclusion (3) would imply that God is the cause of the universe. Perhaps you would deny or challenge one or more of the premises. Perhaps you would challenge the validity of the argument. Perhaps you would accept the argument but deny that God is the cause of the universe.

Discuss.

This is exactly what Albert Einstein set out to prove, that the universe had no beginning so as to discount the need for a source of creation. Instead he ended up proving the opposite that the universe must have had a beginning, which is why we have E=MC2 as an accurate measure of energy.

By the way, the term 'God' when defined as the source of the energy of creation, is an axiom, so it's self evident in concept.