Kalam Cosmological argument
"The material world we sense around us comprises of temporal phenomena that depend for their existence on other temporal phenomena and so forth."
This is fine, sure time passes.
" Such a series cannot continue to infinity, for if it did no one thing would satisfy its dependence and nothing would exist. The fact that things do exist necessarily implies a finite series..."
This is okay too. "Something" started off the Universe, I can go along with that.
".. and, in turn, the existence of a being who determined both the existence of this series and the specific attributes or properties that define it."
NO! I can see why, since this argument has been around for so long, that a theist would want to rush through this part, this very important part.
"By rational extension, this being must be eternal and without beginning, otherwise it is temporal and forms part of the series."
I guess if you get away with quickly rolling by with the 'eternal being' thing, your work is done but you keep going as if that isn't just covering up the 'God-slide-in' there.
" It must also be sentient for a timeless cause producing a temporal effect requires an independent will."
I don't see why some 'timeless cause' requires a will.
" Finally, effecting so grand a creation as the universe and all that it contains necessitates knowledge and power."
Only if we are aiming at Allah or God in the first place, do we need some timeless cause to suddenly be knowledgable.
Seems to me that a meteor heading to destroy the Earth and wipe us out could be imagined to have knowledge (of us) and power(to kill us) too.
The Sun could be imagined to be shining just for us, just to be magnanimous!
So, to sum up, Part Duh!, is the part I have a HUGE problem with. Not so much the causal part or the timeless part but the 'powerful, knowledgable, willful being' part.
Especially since (let's call it) HE, seems to be hiding for no good reason at all, and we've backed into an essentially originally purposeless HE and are going to have to back a purpose into HIM later.
Anyone who suggests that the entire thing is a set up so that he can sneak into theists' minds of an evening? Well that just won't do.
Here's one of their favourite backup responses:-
"If the universe is not eternal and had a beginning, this implies that something came from nothing."
Seems to me that this is saying that 'God' is 'nothing' or that they have no clue what 'God' is except to go with the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing thang that they just WANT 'God' to be.
Can you say, "False dilemma."?