Your views on the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Cheerful Charlie]

He's correct, since infinity isn't a number.  (He's conflating 'infinite' and 'infinity' [as a number].)
See above.
One can, since infinite isn't the same as infinity.  (There's no 'this', since there's no prior argument about 'infinite'.)
So the series of positive integers ISN'T infinitely long?  We have to redo math from the beginning.  Or Craig's wrong.  I know where MY money is.
Well ...

Remember, the universe is finite.  The multiverse, if it exists, could also be finite.  Since the multiverse is only conjecture at this point, assigning definite properties to it is a bit premature.
I trust scientists, who say things like "could be" or "probably", more than I trust people like Craig, who say "is".
What a load of male-bovine-digested grass.

Exactly,  infinity  is NOT a  number.  And if for a fact the true  state of  reality IS a real and actual  infinite chain of cause  and effect, then it is infinite and addition or subtraction  is irrelevant,  its the wrong  set of mathematical tools for dealing with that situation.  IE a strawman.

Again,  we are told God created heaven and hell where souls suffer or enjoy themselves for eternity,  an  infinite series of mental states.   Craig's straw man argument then  precludes this dogmatic  biblical  claim  from  being true.  One cannot get to  infinity by counting (adding) the states of mental agony  or joy to eternity.
Obviously, something here is wrong with this argument.

What Lane tries to do here is rule out an infinite chain  of cause and effect to make God necessary but it fails as a  logical proof.  Potential  or actual  infinities, it matters not

[Mister Agenda]

Hello,

What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?

Virtual particles begin to exist without a cause. Q.E.D.

[pioteir]

"4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a
   personal Creator:
    4.11 The universe was brought into being either
      by a mechanically operating set of necessary and
      sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
    4.12 The universe could not have been brought into
      being by a mechanically operating set of necessary
      and sufficient conditions.
    4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being
      by a personal, free agent."

This is not evidence. And without "personal", the whole thing kinda falls apart. This kind of "proof" should get you laughed out of every science building in the world.

I second that. With Craig it's always "garbage in, garbage out". He FIRST assumes his "personal agent", then creates his pseudo-logical arguments with NO evidence whatsoever, and in the end arrives triumphant at his so-called conclusion. His "iron-clad logic" is reeeaaaaallllyyy irritating, makes me wanna puke everytime I read it or hear him speak. What a fuckin douche.

[the_antithesis]

Hello,

What are your views on Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument? Is there any short and effective response to it?

[pioteir]

If You would excuse me using a pun here: HOOOLLLLYYYYYY SHIT!!!!!

And here I was just about to eat my brownie... guess not!

[the_antithesis]

If You would excuse me using a pun here: HOOOLLLLYYYYYY SHIT!!!!!

And here I was just about to eat my brownie... guess not!

Should have been then when I was on Google Images.