Christian Contradictions Redux

Much of this has been covered in other posts on this blog, but I thought it would be interesting to compile a list of what I think are the most blatant internal contradictions I have encountered with religious beliefs over the years, specifically with Christian beliefs.  And by “internal contradiction” I mean incoherence: one part of the doctrine contradicting another part, not the doctrine contradicting empirical fact or scientific theory.

• Jesus stated many times in the New Testament that if his followers asked for anything in his name (or in the name of the Father or with faith, etc.), it would be given to them. And yet, when you ask most Christians why they didn’t get what they prayed for, you are told that “God promised to answer all prayers, but sometimes the answer is ‘no’” and “God moves in mysterious ways.”
  
• Many theists claim that it is impossible to have any sort of “absolute” morality without God, since man’s morality is always relative. Furthermore, the way to discover God’s absolute morality is by reading the Bible. However, when pressed to explain why God commanded or permitted many things that seem horrible today (slavery, genocide, etc.) or why God forbade many things that seem perfectly all right today (eating pork and shellfish, mixing two different types of fabrics, etc.), the answer is often that those rules were given for the people who lived at that time and don’t apply to us today. In other words, God’s morality is relative and not absolute after all.
  
• Many theists claim that the apparent design we see in nature is “proof” (or at least strong evidence) for the existence of God, since only a perfect being such as God could be responsible for the perfection of design we see all around us. However, when you point out all the obvious flaws with nature’s designs (blind spots in the human eye, etc.), the response is that Adam and Eve sinned, thereby causing the universe to enter into a “fallen” state. If the apparent design is obviously flawed, however, how can you point to its perfection as proof of God’s existence?

• If all children are said to be innocent (“Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven”), how can some Christians also believe that the mere act of being born means that they have sinned enough to be condemned to an eternity of torment in Hell unless saved by Christ’s redeeming grace?
  
• If God loves and cares for all his creations (including the lowly sparrow, according to scripture), why did he create a world where there is so much suffering in the natural world? I’m not talking about man’s inhumanity to man and suffering caused by free will, but the fact that some animals survive by eating other animals, some wasps lay their eggs in living hosts who are eaten alive once the eggs hatch, etc. Saying, “It’s all Adam and Eve’s fault since their sin cause the world to enter a fallen state” doesn’t resolve the contradiction, since God set up the rules in the first place. The world didn’t have to enter a fallen state when Adam and Eve sinned, that’s just how God set things up. He could have set it up so mankind suffered, but the rest of the natural world didn’t. So either God’s not really omnipotent after all or else he just really likes to see small cute little animals suffer and die.
  
• The so-called “Prosperity Gospel”. On one hand, Jesus commanded his followers to give their money to the poor and said that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven. On the other hand, worship Jesus (by giving me all your money) and he will make you fabulously wealthy, just like me!
  
• On one hand, Christians believe that God is eternal and unchangeable (“the same yesterday, and today, and forever”) and that Jesus did not come to destroy or abolish the law of the Old Testament (“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”) On the other hand, when asked why we no longer have to keep kosher today, or stone homosexuals, or avoid mixing threads of two different fabrics, etc., the answer is invariably because Jesus did away with the Old Testament law and we don’t have to follow it today. Well, except for the parts we really like, such as the 10 commandments. And, really, anything that says homosexuality is bad. But shrimp and bacon? Om nom nom nom…
  
• Many Christians here in the U.S. insist that America was founded as a Christian country and that our legal system derives from the Bible. As such, they think it would be great to have laws that outlaw abortion, gay rights, etc. However, the Bible also requires believers to aid the poor and needy. So we should have laws in place to help the poor and the needy, right? No, of course not, since that is something individuals should be concerned with and not the government. In other words, legally banning gay marriage is good since it accords with the Old Testament, but food stamps and welfare programs are bad, despite the fact that they accord with the New Testament. Gotcha.
  
• Theists often attack atheists who believe the universe was NOT created by God by claiming that atheists believe that the universe “came from nothing” (a patently ridiculous concept, apparently). But when asked how the universe was created, they state that God created it… from nothing!

Puny God Redux

A couple of years ago I made a post entitled "Puny God" wherein I talked about how odd I found it that God was so often depicted in modern media as, well, less than the omnipotent, omniscient, infallible being in whom most modern theists claim to actually believe.  At the time, I had just finished reading a set of novels upon which the FX Series "The Strain" was based, and [*SPOILER ALERT*] I was struck by how often God is depicted simultaneously as (a) wholly involved in this little teeny corner of all existence and (b) willing to let huge amounts of his creation suffer and die because of some oversight on His part.  I mean, we are not even talking about suffering caused by mankind's exercise of free will or living in a "fallen" world due to Adam's original sin or any other apologetic justification for why bad things happen to good people.  No, I'm talking about cases where an Angel rebels and decides to wipe out most of humanity.  Or where some ancient artifact once touched by God has been left behind to gather power until a servant of the Devil (or the Devil himself) is able to possess it and wreak havoc.

Anyway, today's redux comes after finishing the entire "Preacher" series of graphic novels, upon which the new AMC series of the same name is loosely based.  It's certainly an entertaining series (albeit a bit too heavy on the sex and nudity and foul language for my taste, even though it's clear that it all serves an important part of the story), but once again it just makes me wonder what sort of God is actually being worshiped here, anyway?

I know all about Young Earth Creationists and their literal view of scriptures.  Yeah, they believe the entire universe really was created 6000-10000 years ago, all the animal species alive today descended from the animals Noah brought with him on the ark 4000 years ago, all of humanity descended from a pair of human beings divinely created as-is in the Garden of Eden, etc.  And I know that many of them have even tried to explain that, since the universe is only 6000-7000 years old, it can't possibly be as big as astronomers want us to believe or, if it is, that's because God created it that big in the first place and set all the photons from distant stars and galaxies midway on their journey to us so it would only appear that they must have traveled millions or even billions of years to get to us.

But seriously, do any of them actually still believe that the Earth is flat, that the sun (and the entire universe) revolves around it once a day, that God is "up there" in the clouds somewhere and that Satan and Hell are "down there" below our feet?  I'm assuming the answer is no, but that just brings me back to my original question as to why God is always depicted as if that's exactly the way the universe is?  The majority of modern day theists seem to prefer to talk about a God who is immaterial, timeless, etc., whose love and intelligence fills the entire universe, as opposed to a glowing white guy with a beard who sits on his thrown in the sky looking down on us.  That presumably lets them maintain their belief in God specifically in the face of all the incontrovertible evidence that the universe is vastly old and vastly huge and that there is no heaven in the sky and no hell beneath our feet.  And, as I said, I don't think even the most die-hard literalists really think God is up there in the clouds somewhere.

So why, why, why does God keep getting portrayed as if our knowledge of the universe had not advanced a whit from the days of those who wrote the scriptures thousands of years ago?  What is this fascination with a version of God that most (if not all) theists agree couldn't possibly be correct?  I mean, I'm fine with it because I acknowledge that it is all fiction and quibbling with the way God is depicted would be like complaining because the Ewoks from Star Wars don't seem realistic enough.  But if theists really do believe that God is some immaterial, timeless being that has an entire universe to take care of, why isn't he ever actually portrayed that way and why are books and movies that portray him as a "puny God so darn popular?

Is it just because all these popular books and movies are produced by atheists?  Are the audiences that lap them up also atheists (even if they won't admit it publicly)?  Or do they, like me, just enjoy these stories as the fiction they are despite the fact that acknowledging them as wholly fictional undercuts the very foundation of their beliefs?

I would honestly like to hear from theists who like these sorts of movies, books, comics, etc.  Are they comfortable with God being literally depicted as the holy scriptures describe him instead of the way most "enlightened" theists talk about him today?  Or would it be more disturbing to actually depict God as he is usually described today (immaterial, timeless, etc.) instead of as a glorified, glowing figure in a white beard who sits in a thrown in the sky and comes down to chat every now and then?

I suspect that most "enlightened" theists today want to believe in a personal "Sky Daddy" of a God who, just like the scriptures teach, looks like us, watches over us, cares for us, and could possibly come down from his thrown and provide individual help if we needed it.  Of course, they can't actually say that's what they actually do believe, since they know they would be ridiculed for doing so (which is why they've come up with this whole idea of an "unprovable" God who doesn't show himself directly and whose very existence must be taken on faith alone).  But maybe that's why these depictions of God in movies, television, books, etc. are so popular -- because theists today desperately want to believe that God is how he is depicted in the scriptures and not the watered-down, science-accommodating, non-falsifiable "God is love" type of being that most theists seem to espouse these days.

That's just my theory, though.  I'd love to here what you think...

"Molecules In Motion"

There's a recurring statement that comes up in a variety of contexts, whether it be discussions of free will, morality, evidence of God's existence, etc., that atheists believe that nothing exists in the universe except for matter and energy and therefore must think that human beings are nothing more than "molecules in motion" (or words to that effect).  For example, when discussing morality, a theist might claim that atheists have no way of justifying a belief in morality without a belief in God since, after all, atheists think we're all just a bunch of molecules in motion (or matter and energy) following Newton's laws of motion and acting in predetermined ways based on stimuli.  Or something like that.  So, the argument goes, how can there be any morality if we are not free to choose our own actions?

This same argument is used to explain why there supposedly can't be any sort of free will without there being a supernatural being to give us that free will.  Sometimes it's even used to prove the existence of God, since there's supposedly no other way that consciousness could possibly arise from "mere" matter and energy.

When this argument is raised, in whatever context, the person representing the atheist point of view often tries to defend how its possible to have morality based on natural laws that are wholly apart from human consciousness.  Or perhaps that it doesn't matter whether we "really" have free will as long as we think that we do and act in accordance with that belief.

Personally, I think trying to argue along these lines misses the boat.  Once again, theists are just presenting another form of "Argument from Ignorance" and claiming that, since atheists can't explain it, God must be the answer.  However, rather than falling into this trap and trying to explain something that may very well be inexplicable, I think it's better to simply acknowledge that we don't know how consciousness and free will could arise from matter and energy.  The fact that we can't explain it doesn't mean that it has to be God.  It just means that we can't explain it.  And it also doesn't mean that the theist explanation of God is the correct explanation, either.  I mean, if we're going to assume that any explanation must be better than no explanation, then I'll go ahead and posit that consciousness and free will arises due to the presence of immaterial and undetectable "mind" particles that permeate the universe and accumulate over time in our brains.  Sure, I have no evidence that these particles exist, let alone that they do what I claim they do, but apparently that doesn't matter as long as they explain the observed phenomena that we do have consciousness and free will, right?  And can anybody prove that my immaterial and undetectable particles don't exist?

The bottom line, as always, is that atheism is not a claim to have all the answers about everything in the universe -- it is simply a lack of belief in the claim made by theists that they do have all the answers to everything in the universe.  Sure, I suspect that scientists (not "atheists", mind you) will someday figure out just how consciousness and free will arises naturally from matter and energy.  Or perhaps they really will find evidence of the "mind" particle I joked about earlier.  But until they do, it doesn't mean that the "God" explanation must be true in the meantime, any more than it was true that Thor was responsible for thunder until we figured out how it was really caused.

A Revelation Regarding Arguments for the Existence of God

OK, so the title of this post is intentionally meant to be humorous, but after watching yet another debate between a theist and an atheist regarding the existence of God, I had a sudden realization.  An epiphany, if you will.

The theist side of most of these debates usually consists of three main angles of attack:

1. God's existence can be logically proved via a number of different arguments, such as the Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Design or the Argument from Contingency (which is really just a subset of the Cosmological Argument).
    
2. Science (usually equated with atheism for some reason) can't explain everything (or anything, with 100% certainty), but the "God" hypothesis can, so therefore it is more reasonable to believe that God exists.
   
3. Faith, personal revelation, etc., "prove" that the theist's accepted version of God is the right one (which is why Muslims use the same exact arguments as Christians to "prove" wildly different versions of God).

Now, the third angle of attack can usually be dismissed out of hand, simply because the theist acknowledges that there is no way to prove the assertion and it's really just a statement of belief (no matter how deeply held).  And the second line of attack is also pretty easily dismissed, since it's trivial to explain that the burden of proof lies on the head of he who is making a positive claim ("God exists") and atheists don't have to be able to explain anything (or everything) with 100% certainty if theists can't even prove that God exists in the first place.

And so, most of these debates tend to revolve around the first angle of attack.  The theist runs through the same tired arguments that have been refuted time and time again, and the atheist goes through the motions of pointing out how they have been refuted time and time again.  And nothing ever gets resolved!  Even if the atheist refutes every single point made by the theist, even if he explains in careful detail the unwarranted assumptions, begged questions, leaps of logic and major fallacies employed while making the arguments, the theist just continues blithely on to the second and third angles of attack as if nothing happened.

And this is when I had my revelation.  Theists who make these arguments purporting to prove the existence of God aren't actually trying to convince atheists that God exists.  Instead, they are simply trying to offer logical-sounding justifications for what they believe so as to not appear illogical, foolish, gullible, stupid, idiotic, or what have you.  They know that their belief in God is based on a wholly irrational foundation of faith (not to mention cultural inertia, family experience, etc.), and they trot out these arguments to make themselves feel better.

Again, this becomes extremely apparent after a theist runs through all the "logical" arguments as to why a God (of some sort) must necessarily exist, but then has to resort to an appeal to faith or personal revelation or an appeal to emotion to bridge the gap between the supposedly proven "first cause" God and the God that they personally believe in and worship.

All of which is to say that debating theists over the existence of God is probably a useless exercise.  People don't tend to believe in God for logical reasons in the first place, so refuting the logic of their proposed arguments isn't likely to change their opinions.  The arguments are nothing but smokescreens to hide the fact that their beliefs are not based on logic or evidence, since appeals to faith typically don't carry too much weight with the faithless.

The Power of Coincidence

So, I've had this little snippet of classical music stuck in my head for months now with no idea what it actually was.  It might have been something I heard on the radio years ago, but it also might have been background music for a commercial or something else like that.  I suspected it might be something by Bach, but that was the best I could do.  It was really driving me crazy, especially since I could only remember the first few bars and really wanted to hear the rest.

Well, last night I went to my weekly choir rehearsal (yes, I sing in a small a capella choir that specializes in Renaissance music) and asked our director, Jay, if he had any idea what this tune was (obviously, it helps that I can actually sing).  He thought about it and said it might possibly be from Bach's "Italian Concerto".  That's a piece I've heard of, but don't recall ever actually listening to, so I told him I'd look it up on Youtube later and let him know.

After rehearsal, I got into my car and headed home.  The radio was tuned to WCRB (classical music), and literally the first thing I hear upon starting the car was, "Up next, Bach's 'Italian Concerto.'"  Cue the "Twilight Zone" music (doo-dee-doo-doo, doo-dee-doo-doo).  The first movement didn't sound particularly familiar, and neither did the second movement.  When the third movement started playing, though, shivers shot up and down my spine as I heard the exact same snippet of music that had been running through my head for months and that I had just asked my director about.  What an amazing coincidence!  I mean, I can't even begin to calculate the odds of it happening the way it happened, but they must be astronomical to the point where it couldn't have happened just by chance.  Except, of course, that it did happen just by chance.

Later that evening, I began to think more about my experience and started wondering what my reaction would have been had I previously taken some action that could somehow be interpreted as triggering this event.  What if, say, I had read a fortune cookie at the Chinese restaurant where I usually eat lunch and it had said something like, "Today, you will find the answer to your question."  Or, what if I had visited a fortune teller who told me that today was going to be my lucky day?  Well, I probably would have still chalked it up to just an amazing coincidence.  But, what if I were still religious and had prayed to God to please, please, help me figure out what this tune was before it drove me crazy?  And then I had this amazing coincidence happen?  Hmmmmm...

Growing up surrounded by theists, all my life I have heard so-called "faith promoting stories" that people have used to justify their faith.  Yes, I'm sure that some of those stories are complete fabrications, but I'm willing to accept that most of them are totally sincere and reflect instances where somebody prayed about something and then had something inexplicably amazing happen to them, something so bizarre that it couldn't possibly have been just a coincidence.  Or maybe they didn't even pray about something, but knew that whatever happened must have been because God was rewarding them for being faithful, or sending them a message, or whatever.  After all, what other possible explanation could there be?

OK, so maybe in the great scheme of things my little brush with coincidence wasn't all that earth-shattering.  Maybe it's not so bizarre as it seemed to me and stuff like this actually happens all the time.  Regardless, it seemed bizarrely inexplicable to me at the time and it gave me an appreciation as to why people are so willing to think that experiences such as this provide evidence (if not absolute proof) of whatever type of supernatural beliefs they hold.  Of course, since I'm using this experience to reinforce my non-belief in the supernatural, I suppose you could call this a "faith demoting story"...

The "Theory" of Evolution

I've lost count of how many times I've heard or seen fundamentalist theists (whether Christian or Muslim) disparage the entire concept of evolution by saying, "it's just a theory."  As in, "Scientists claim that man evolved from apes, but the Theory of Evolution is just that -- a theory!  It's nothing more than a guess!"  I've also lost count of how many times I have heard or seen people (whether atheists or just rational theists) respond to this claim, but the responses always seem to be one of two different approaches.  Some people go with a glib response to the tune of, "Evolution is 'just' a theory the same way gravity is 'just' a theory!"  Others point out that the word "theory" has a different meaning when used in a scientific context than it does when used colloquially.  In other words, while theory can certainly mean "simply a guess or conjecture" when used colloquially, when scientists use the term they mean "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena."

Neither of these two standard responses are particularly helpful, in my opinion.  The first suffers simply because it is glib, and doesn't really offer enough information to change anybody's mind on the subject.  Glib responses, in my experience, are best suited to making the person making the response feel superior, but don't typically have much affect on the respondent.  The second response, while informative and accurate, suffers because it completely misses the entire point.  It doesn't really matter if "theory" is defined to mean that it's not "just" a guess but is instead supported by evidence and generally accepted as true.  That still lets fundamentalists claim that it doesn't have to be true.  "After all," they might argue, "for centuries it was generally accepted by scientists that the earth was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or that everything was made up of earth, air, fire and water."

No, I think the best response to the whole "it's just a theory" argument is to point out what the Theory of Evolution actually is, not what the word "theory" means.  And no, I don't mean explain all the details of the theory and point out all the evidence that supports it (although that can certainly be helpful if you have the scientific background to pull it off).  I'm talking about something a lot more basic which always seems to get missed in these discussions.  It is important to explain that the Theory of Evolution is not the proposition that there is such a thing as evolution in the first place, that all currently existing species (including man) have evolved from previously existing species, and that all life on earth shares a common ancestor who lived billions of years ago.  Instead, the Theory of Evolution is the proposition to explain how and why all of that took place.

Evolution, in other words, is an observable, demonstrable fact and not a theory at all!  The Theory of Evolution is our best explanation (supported by evidence and commonly accepted as accurate) as to what caused (and still causes) that fact.  And just because our best explanation might be incomplete or inaccurate or just flat-out wrong doesn't say anything about whether scientists are at all unsure as to whether evolution is a real thing.  This is similar to how the "Theory of Gravity" does not seek to explain whether or not there is gravity, but instead seeks to explain why there is gravity and how it works.

Evolution is an observable and demonstrable fact, plain and simple.  We have a multitude of evidence from various sources, such as the fossil record, comparative anatomy, DNA analysis, etc., that shows unequivocally that all life on earth has evolved from prior life forms over time and that all living creatures shared common ancestors in the past.  Evolution itself is not a theory -- it's simply an observation.  The Theory or Evolution deals with how and why evolution occurred, and the commonly accepted explanation is that evolution is caused by the occurrence of random mutations within a population that gives rise to variety, and that changes in environment cause different variations within the population to either thrive or perish, which over vast time scales can lead to entirely new species, genera, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms.

Whether this theory is wholly accurate and complete can certainly be discussed.  It is, after all, "just" a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction.  Maybe there are additional factors at work that we haven't figured out yet.  Maybe some of the factors we currently believe to be involved aren't as important as we think.  Maybe we've got it completely wrong and there is a totally different explanation for how evolution has occurred (and is still occurring).  Maybe that explanation is even "God did it" (or "aliens did it" or "magic pixies did it").  But none of that uncertainty changes the fact that evolution has occurred and continues to occur.

Evolution is a fact.  The explanation as to how it works is a theory.  A very good, commonly accepted theory that can be and has been used as principles of explanation and prediction, but a theory nonetheless.  And this, I believe, is the best response to the whole "evolution is just a theory" argument.  No, the "Theory of Evolution" is a theory, but evolution itself is an an accepted, observable, demonstrable fact.

The Cosmological Argument

They say there is nothing new under the sun, and that may very well be true.  As I watch various apologists try to justify their belief in God (whether it be the God of Christendom, Allah, or some other version of God), most of them at some point fall back on some form of the so-called "Cosmological" argument that has actually been around for quite a long time and has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy (despite the fact that, as far as I am aware, the God that Aristotle was trying to prove was neither the Christian nor the Muslim God).

Some modern apologists go to great lengths to add numerous subtle nuances to the argument to patch its obvious flaws, but the basic formation of the argument has been codified as the "Kalām Cosmological Argument" (KCA) that reads as follows:

1.  Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

On its face, this is a perfectly valid argument in the sense that the conclusion logically follows from its premises.  There are, however, some serious problems with the argument that basically render it useless on its face.

A Valid Argument Is Not the Same as a Sound Argument

As stated above, a "valid" argument is one which the conclusion logically follows from the stated premises.  However, in order to be at all useful, an argument must also be "sound."  In order to be sound, the conclusion must not only logically follow from the premises, the premises themselves must also be actually true.

For example, the following is a perfectly valid argument that is completely unsound:

1. All elephants can fly
2. Dumbo is an elephant
3. Therefore, Dumbo can fly

This argument is unsound for a variety of reasons, namely that the first premise is not actually true and the second premise refers to a fictional character that doesn't actually exist.  Therefore, this argument is completely useless as an attempt to prove that Dumbo can fly, regardless of whether or not Dumbo really exists and can, in fact, fly. In other words, an unsound argument doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is false, but it simply isn't useful in proving that conclusion.

Another example, perhaps a bit closer to the KCA, would be as follows:

1. All swans have white feathers
2. Black swans are swans
3. Therefore, black swans have white feathers

Again, the problem with this argument is with the first premise.  What makes this argument a bit more subtle than the Dumbo example, however, is the fact that most swans do, in fact, have white feathers.  It's even possible that, before the discovery of the black swan in Australia, every species of swan ever encountered did, in fact, have white feathers.  But there's a huge difference between saying "All swans have white feathers" and saying "All swans that we are currently aware of have white feathers."  Not understanding that empirical evidence is not the same as absolute truth could therefore lead somebody to follow up by claiming that, since black swans must (according to the argument) have white feathers, it must be the case that black swans have a special kind of magical white feathers that just appear black to our eyes instead of just acknowledging that the argument is flawed.

Keeping that in mind, let's take another look at the KCA, but with a few annotations added in:

1. [Based on our limited empirical experience,] whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist [depending on your definition of "universe" and assumed to be true because humans aren't comfortable with the idea of an infinite regress].
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause [unless, of course, the universe is a special case of something that began to exist without having a cause, or unless the universe didn't actually have a true beginning as would be the case if it were part of a multi-verse or in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction].

The first premise is based on empirical evidence of how things we currently observe behave, but isn't necessarily true for all cases everywhere. Perhaps the universe is the exception to this general rule (after all, we have never observed a universe come into being before, so we can't know whether it follows the same rules as everything else within that universe that we have observed).  Perhaps things come into being by themselves all the time, but just not where we can observe it (or where we have yet observed it).  Or perhaps the entire premise is just flat out wrong and, as physicist Lawrence Krauss describes in his book, "A Universe from Nothing," particles routinely do pop in and out of existence all around us all the time.  Either way, there's simply no justification to accept as absolute the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause.  It may seem to be common sense and may seem to be based on our experience with the natural world, but that doesn't make it necessarily true by any stretch of the imagination.

[As an aside, it's interesting to note that early formations of the Cosmological Argument simply had "Everything that exists has a cause of its existence.  The big "breakthrough" of the KCA was adding "that begins to exist" to get around the obvious observation that God, as a being who exists, would also necessarily need a cause of his existence.  All we have to do then is magically redefine God as a being who never had a beginning (or "exists outside of time and space") and voila! Problem supposedly solved.  Except, not really.  More on this later...]

As for the second premise, the Bible states that God created the universe out of nothing. That's not what science says, however. The Big Bang theory doesn't explain how the universe was created but simply describes the expansion of the known universe from an seemingly infinitely dense and infinitely small singularity that presumably contained within itself all matter and energy. Where did that singularity come from and what caused it to expand? Nobody knows, but there are numerous theories that do not require any sort of intelligent causation.

Now, some modern apologists try to finesse the argument here by claiming that the universe must have had a beginning since the concept of an "actual" infinity (as opposed to, I assume, the "virtual" infinities that are used in and even required by various disciplines of mathematics and physics) is "metaphysically" impossible.  And by "metaphysically" impossible, these apologists basically mean that the concept makes no sense to them.  OK, so maybe I'm oversimplifying their view a wee bit, but their arguments against "actual" infinities rely on discussions of logical contradictions such as how an infinite amount divided in half would produce two infinite amounts.  And they then claim that this supposed impossibility of an "actual" infinity means that there must have been a beginning to everything at some point, even if you assume the universe is cyclical or budded off from a pre-existing multiverse.

Since the first two premises are not necessarily true, the conclusion is not justified.   The premises could possibly be true, but there's nothing that requires them to be true, and therefore the argument fails on its face as an unsound argument.  Again, this doesn't prove that the conclusion is false, only that this argument doesn't prove it to be true.

What if the Conclusion Is True?

OK, so the cosmological argument isn't sound and therefore the conclusion that the universe had a cause isn't necessarily true.  But it could still be true, right?  And perhaps, some would argue, it's extremely probable even if not necessarily true.

So let's go there and assume for the sake of argument that the conclusion is actually true and there actually was a cause to the universe (either our current universe or the theoretical cyclical universe or multiverse).  So what?  Even if we accept that the universe somehow had some sort of "cause," we still don't know anything about what that cause was. Could the universe be its own cause (again, we've never observed a universe come into being before, so we can't say what the rules are for universe creation)?  Why does it have to be an intelligent being (lot's of things happen by random chance, so why do we insist that the creation of the universe must have been done on purpose)?

Some apologists start with the conclusion that the universe must have had a "cause" of some sort and try to make all sorts of inferences as to what this cause must be like.  For example, since whatever caused space and time to exist in the first place can't possibly exist in space or time itself, this cause must therefore be somehow timeless (a.k.a "eternal") and immaterial.  Gee, they then claim, this sounds an awful like the God of [insert pet religion here], since that God is described as being eternal and a being of pure mind.  Except... Well, first of all, there's no explanation given as to how something that is timeless and immaterial could actually have any interaction whatsoever with time and space.  It just did.  Second of all, God isn't actually described as a "pure mind" in any of the holy scriptures (in fact, he is described as a physical being who interacts with his creations).  Third, while God is described as being "eternal" in the holy books, that's not the same as "existing outside of time" or "timeless."  It just means he has existed forever and will exist forever, "forever" being a measurement of time and not a state outside of time.

These apologists will also argue that whatever caused the universe to exist must be an "agent" of some sort, meaning an intelligent being.  And this is supposedly because something had to choose to create the universe or else it would have stayed in it's uncreated state forever.  And only an intelligent being is capable of choosing.  Except... the whole concept of choosing implies the passage of time.  The whole concept of a being sitting around saying, "No universe yet, no universe yet, wait for it... NOW!" only makes sense if you're talking about a being that exists within time and not outside of it.  Besides, there's no logical requirement that something like the creation of the universe must be the result of choice in the first place.  If quantum theory teaches us anything at all, it's that sometimes things happen when they do out of sheer random chance.

Which brings us to the part where apologists really back themselves into a corner via a startling bit of circular logic.  If everything that begins to exist must have a cause and the universe must have had a beginning because actual infinities are metaphysically impossible, where did God come from?  As mentioned earlier, the original formulation of the Cosmological Argument stated that everything that exists must have a cause, but modern apologists changed that to everything that begins to exist must have a cause.  This provided them with a loophole to state that God is exempt from the first premise since he didn't actually have a beginning and therefore didn't need a cause to begin to exist.

Well, aside from the fact that this leads to all sort of mental wrangling described above whereby you have to claim that, in order to never have had a beginning, God must simultaneously be an immaterial being consisting of pure "mind" (whatever that means) existing outside of space and time and somehow be able to interact with space and time whenever he wants, it also ignores the second premise of the argument that claims that the universe must have had a beginning because an actual infinity is impossible.  If that is actually true, than it would also apply to God.  Claiming that God, being an infinite and eternal being, is the exception to the rule that actual infinities are impossible is just a case of special pleading and one would be equally justified claiming that the universe (or multiverse) is the exception to the rule and therefore there's no need for God.  In other words,  if the universe necessarily had a beginning then so did God, and no amount of making up claims out of whole cloth that God must be "timeless" can avoid that fact.  And remember -- the "timelessness" of God was not an something originally attributed to him in the scriptures, but was instead something ascribed to him as a way of dealing with the flaws in this argument.  God never claimed to exist outside of time, but assuming that he must do so is the only way this argument can possibly work.  Except that "timelessness" doesn't actually mean anything.  If an "actual infinity" is meaningless, the concept of "timelessness" is surely far, far worse.  Calling God timeless to patch up a flaw in the KCA is like making up the concept of magical white feathers in my black swan argument described above.  Sure, it makes the argument work, but it's ridiculous and self-contradictory on its face and is only required because you want to accept a false premise as true.

But let's go a step further and assume that somehow there is such a thing as an immaterial mind that is both "timeless" and "spaceless" and that such a concept is not just an obvious self-contradiction [Q: What do you call something that does not exist within space and time? A: Nothing].  And let's push accommodation to the very limits and assume that such a being could actually somehow interact with the physical universe, at least to the extent of creating it in the first place.  What justification is there to imagine that intelligent being just happens to be the God worshiped by your particular religion and not that of your neighbor?  One you've "proved" that the universe has a cause and that cause was some sort of intelligent being of some sort, how do you know it's your God?

My favorite part of watching people argue for the existence of their particular God using the Kalām Cosmological Argument is when they get to the end and are inevitably asked how they know that this "first cause" God is their particular God. And then you invariably get answers along the line of "Because Christ came to me and spoke to my heart" or "that's where faith comes in" or "the Koran is the most demonstrably true book ever written", etc.  In other words, every different religion that believes in a God can use the same argument to prove the existence of their particular version of God, and every different religion is convinced that their version of God is the correct one.  Which is to say, an argument that can be used to prove inherently contradictory conclusions is not a particularly useful argument:

In Conclusion...

 So, to sum up:

1. The Cosmological Argument doesn't necessarily prove that the universe must have had any sort of "cause."
2. Even if it the universe did have a cause, there's no justification to claim that that cause must be a conscious agent an trying to describe that cause as existing outside of space and time (since those terms have no actual meaning) or that it is "pure mind" (since we have no evidence that minds can exist apart from a physical brain) or that something that is outside of space and time could even possibly interact with matter and energy in the first place.  After all, when was the last time you were able to affect anything apart from your own body simply by willing it to happen with your mind?
3. Finally, even if the universe did have a cause, and even if that cause could actually be said to be a timeless, immaterial being of pure mind, there's no justification to associate that being with the God of any particular religion, since it doesn't actually match the description of God from any religion's holy books and has, in fact, been equally associated to many different religions.