My main problem with William Lane Craig's argument for the existence God using Kalam Cosmological arguments are basically two overlapping categories.
(1) Assumptions that lead directly to the conclusion that God exists.
(2) The misuse of science where the knowledge of science does not lead to nor is comparable the conclusion of science. The use of science is selective and biased toward the desired conclusions of Craig's arguments.
For example: As with many apologists the beginning of our physical existence and our universe is equated with the supposed 'Big Bang' as the beginning of our universe. This conclusion is somewhat deceptive and misleading described as follows
(1) Assumptions that lead directly to the conclusion that God exists.
(2) The misuse of science where the knowledge of science does not lead to nor is comparable the conclusion of science. The use of science is selective and biased toward the desired conclusions of Craig's arguments.
For example: As with many apologists the beginning of our physical existence and our universe is equated with the supposed 'Big Bang' as the beginning of our universe. This conclusion is somewhat deceptive and misleading described as follows
Comment