The Kalam Cosmological Argument Criticized

It appears William Lane Craigs' cosmological argument is stirring talk within the philosophical community.

Rasmussen states:

I'll wrap up. My sense is that the Kalam argument is more likely to appeal to the common man or woman than to your average philosopher. From the common man's perspective, beginnings obviously have causes; science reveals a beginning to our universe; and surely only God would be the cause of our entire universe(I've conducted informal surveys). But philosophers recognize a lot of complexity beneath first appearances. They ask: Does science reveal that our universe popped into being, or merely that it has existed for a finite amount of time? Is our intuition that all beginnings have a cause, or is it rather that everything that comes to be is made out of pre-existing materials or is preceded by a past? Must the cause of our universe be a supernatural God, or might it instead be a more natural phenomena? Questions like these often motivate skepticism among philosophers concerning the Kalam argument. At least that is so for Wes and me.

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2009/04/more-reflection.html

For additional references read here (Pruss):

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/infinite-numbers-of-objects.html

and here:

http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-on-kalaam-argument.html

Enjoy!