William Lane Craig - Arguing God from First Cause?

Everything that begins to exist requires a cause. If the universe began to exist, does this require a first cause outside the universe?

[BobbyValenzuela]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument had stood the test of time and is getting increasing more powerful as astrophysical cosmology progresses

[Andrefelipelopes]

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause". I disagree with that. Everything that begins to exist has a material cause and a effective cause. Exemple: when a chair begins to exist its needed wood, nails and a effective cause, 'the carpenter'. I find to be confusing when people argue about things that happened before the big bang. How can we know if back then when there was no laws of physics and no known forces, things followed these steps to begin to exist?

[saganworshipper]

Arguments for God: Theological Arguments for the Existence of God

God, Time, Causation: Temporal Requirements for Causes to Exist
It is common to argue that because everything we experience appears to have a cause for its existence, then the totality of everything (the universe) must also have a cause for its existence. It is assumed that the universe cannot be self-caused, so therefore the cause must be outside the universe — God, in other words. Is this a legitimate argument? Can we conclude that the universe has a cause because everything in the universe has a cause and, therefore, that some particular god exists?

God as Designer: Does God's Mind Evince Signs of Design?
People who argue that the universe is designed face numerous problems and contradictions in their arguments. One of the most interesting is that if everything with a useful purpose is necessarily designed, then isn't the same true of the mind of the alleged designer?

Order & Chance: Does the World Require a Designer?
The most common argument offered on behalf of the idea that our orderly world needs a designer is that such order could not possibly have arisen naturally, without direction. Why do people believe this? Not on the basis of empirical evidence, but because they are very poor judges of whether and how likely events are to occur by chance.

God as Explanation for Order: What Explains God's Orderly Mind?
Many Christians insist that order in the universe requires the existence and intervention of their god as an explanation. There's just one problem: if order can't exist without the action of their god, then why is their god's mind orderly?

Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological Argument covers a lot of ground and takes a number of different forms. The most common deal with two ideas: that the existence of the universe requires a god as an explanation (First Cause - this form is also called the Etiological Argument) or that order in the universe requires a god as an explanation.

Teleology and Design
Often this is called the Argument from Design because one is arguing from the existence of design and to the conclusion that the design requires God to explain. Instead, what is required is an argument to design - the person attempting to prove a god must first give just cause why anyone should believe that something called "design" can be discerned in the natural world.

Ontological Argument for God
Ontological Argument: The Ontological Argument for the existence of God is one of the oldest arguments in Christian theology. It is also one of the most difficult to understand because it relies purely upon logical considerations and not at all upon empirical evidence.

Argument from Religious Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience is that many people have what they label as religious experiences - experiences of the supernatural, like heaven or angels or even a god. Because we believe the experiential claims which people generally make - like that they went to the store or that they own a car - then we should be willing to believe these claims as well.

Argument from Mysticism
An important form of the Argument from Religious Experience focuses on the issue of mysticism - it might be called the Argument from Professional Religious Experience. What is claimed is that, throughout time, in various cultures and places, there have existed particular individuals who have somehow had direct, personal experiences with God.

Argument from Intuition & Instinct
Sometimes people can argue that anyone who is truly religious simply "knows" that their god really does exist. Logical proofs and empirical evidence simply aren't necessary to validate this belief. The believer "feels" the presence of his or her god and "intuition" is cited as a valid source of this knowledge.

Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Miracles is based first and foremost on the premise that there exist events which must be explained by supernatural causes, i.e. God. Probably every religion has had miracle claims and so the promotion and apologetics for every religion has included references to allegedly miraculous events.

Axiological Arguments from Morals and Values
Separate but connected, the arguments from morals and values make up what are known as the Axiological Arguments (axios = value). According to the Argument from Values the exististence of universal human values and ideals means that there must be a God who created them. The Arguemnt from Morals asserts that morality can only be explained by the existence of a God who created us.

Argument from Justice: Must Justice Exist in the Afterlife?
According to the Argument from Justice, God or an afterlife must exist because Justice must exist and only they can deliver Justice.

Pascal's Wager
Someone who offers Pascal's Wager is arguing that to believe in God is a better bet than not believing in God. If you believe and God exists, you’ll go to heaven and avoid hell; if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing. If you don’t believe in God and God does exist, you’ll lose heaven and go to hell; if you’re right, then you gain nothing. There are a lot of problems with this argument.

Argument from Reward
Some apologists argue that people who believe in a god are happier than those who do not believe in any gods. They suggest that this extra happiness is a reward from their god and, hence, the god they believe in must exist. It isn't too hard to see why this argument isn't offered by more sophisticated apologists and professional theologians.

Argument from Scripture
Some popular apologists argue that their particular holy books qualify as evidence supporting their claims that their god(s) exist. One method might be to point to the supernatural events recorded in these books as requiring the existence of a god. Or they might point to how influential the scriptures have been, arguing that this would not have been possible without the help of a god.

Argument from Common Consent
This argument was once used by theologians and philosophers, but has fallen out of favor among those who know what they are talking about. The reason, as it shall be seen, is that this is not simply an flawed argument but can also be a logical fallacy.

Consciousness and the Mind
Argument from Consciousness
According to this argument, neither naturalism nor materialism can give an adequate explanation of mental events like consciousness. Consequently, divine and supernatural explanations are needed to explain why we are conscious and how our brains work.

What is God? Definitions, Characteristics, and Attributes of God
When a theist claims that a god exists, one of the first questions atheists should ask is "what do you mean by 'god'?" Without understanding what the theist means, the atheist simply cannot evaluate the claim. By the same token, unless the theist is very clear about what he means, he cannot adequately explain and defend his beliefs.

God as Designer: Does God's Mind Evince Signs of Design?
People who argue that the universe is designed face numerous problems and contradictions in their arguments. One of the most interesting contradictions is that if everything with a useful purpose is necessarily designed, then isn't the same true of the mind of the alleged designer?

[RickDelmonico]

If we try to apply Occam's razor to a question as big as existence we will fail to understand the problem because we are dealing with something so complex that it can never be reduced to simple ideas. There will always be an explanation that requires an explanation. If God wanted to preserve free will, this would be a good way to do that. The one thing we cannot say is that a highly complex system with information as a fundamental feature cannot arise from randomness. Randomness is a total absence of information.

[saganworshipper]

In a debate about morality and the Christian religion, Sam Harris points out the double standard in the idea of an all-benevolent god. When something good happens to a believer, believers often attribute that to God. When a disaster occurs, believers often explain that God's will is mysterious and cannot be comprehended by mortals. These two claims are in opposition; if God's will cannot be comprehended, how do we know that he has good intentions at all? It certainly does not lay a solid foundation for the claim of God as the ultimate source of morality.

If anything, the pervasiveness of religion throughout history and across the world might say more about people than it does about any hypothetical deity. Similar to the evolutionary process of living beings, it is possible that religions have evolved as a self-replicating set of ideas in a way that take advantage of our natural sentiments and desires to increase the rate at which they spread while disguising their true nature. As the philosopher Daniel Dennett explains: “If (some) religions are culturally evolved parasites, we can expect them to be insidiously well designed to conceal their true nature from their hosts, since this is an adaptation that would further their own spread.” The religions that we have today are a small fraction of all religions that have existed throughout human history. The ones that we are left with have survived because they have more effectively adapted to attract and hold the allegiance of many people.

Researchers at Ohio State University have identified 16 separate psychological desires that motivate people to seek religion, such as honor, idealism, acceptance, interdependence and fear of death. It is likely that religious beliefs have been so widespread because they tap into the psychological desires of many people, not because there is any external proof of their veracity.

Science fiction author Philip K. Dick once stated, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” This touches on the heart of the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Physical reality does not require belief to sustain it, and belief will not modify the rules of the universe.

Navabi, Armin (2014-10-06). Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God (Kindle Locations 457-459). Atheist Republic. Kindle Edition.

[JohnDoe-fgng]

Astronomers "We don't really know what happens at and near the big bang, our equations break down. We need to understand physics more to understand this".
Apologists "Astronomy proves there was a beginning of everything at the big bang, and that beginning must be God! Specifically the God we were raised up with".

[DeusExAstra]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is so full of holes it's embarrassing. Actually every other thing WLC says is embarrassing.

[VeracityMedia]

This guy is a bible literalist. He really has nothing of substance to offer. Your channel is much better when you stay away from religious zealots.

[workforyouraims]

I respect these arguments but it doesn't really solve anything.What's the cause of god?you are just taking the problem one step away

[BradHolkesvig]

It's interesting to listen to these liars and all the various lies they come up with to defend their lack of knowledge to know exactly how we're created.

[neurodiverse]

WLG's best argument is word salad. More commonly known as utter #BullShit

[LogicAndReason]

The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you know that you're dreaming.