(to the mods: I'm posting this in the philosophical forum because the way the argument is framed is in the realm of philosophical discourse, even though it's on the nature of God; I felt it fit better here than in the Religious Texts sub-forum, but feel free to move it).
For those who don't know the reference, I mean the (now famous) Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God (there are subsets for these arguments if anyone wants to look them up):
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The argument from that basic syllogistic premise to the existence of God is (paraphrased, since I can't find the official version):
4. The First Cause must be uncaused, personal, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
5. Only the God of Theism fits that description
Basically: what does everyone here think of the argument? I'm an atheist myself, but it's been very entertaining reading and listening to the tons of debate over this argument. I do feel that the argument has significant flaws, but I also feel that Craig ultimately offers an inductive argument that's far stronger than most others I've heard for the existence of God. Ultimately, my take on it is that science is still very much up in the air over the truthfulness of both the central premises, and no matter of how many times I hear Craig claim that virtual particles are "caused" because they come out of a "sea of fluctuating energy," I really don't see how he gets from contingency to cause in that scenario. But that's just one minor flaw amongst many others that are interesting to explore.