The issue with this argument is that it makes a false assumpetion as a premise. That is, "all things that exist must have a cause." What exists may exist for the simple purpose of existing. There is no need for a specific cause apart from the assertion that it must. The universe may exist for no cause, or have always existed in a state of oscillating creation/destruction.That's a seperate issue from the creation of matter, which is bound by the laws of physics.Beyond that ... it's silly to assume that even if there is a cause, that (1) the cause must be worshipped and (2) the cause is the Judeo-Christian deity.
Please give me some examples of things which have come into existence without a cause.(And skip the usually-quoted quantum effects, which are: A. Not well enough understood to serve as a disproof, and B. Come into existence in the material world through quantum vacuums containing energy and allowing the situation, and therefore obviously are not in the scope of an 'uncaused' reality like the Big Bang, for example.)The simple fact is that we have no experimental situation--ever--in which things simply pop into existence uncaused. (Indeed, think what science would look like if so: experimentation would be very, very difficult. How could you ever be certain that the result of your experiment was legitimate, and not the result of some uncaused effect which unpredictably popped into existence only at that moment, and would never be repeatable?)
"Please give me some examples of things which have come into existence without a cause."The universe could be an example. ;)
Lol, nice try. :). No, I want to hear one single physical example of something existing without cause, popping into existence above the atomic level. Just once...otherwise, you cannot deny that the kalam argument is valid. You can disagree with it theoretically or by faith only...not by proof.