This is part of William Lane Craig's Kalam argument for the possibility of a personal creator God
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
We won't say any more about it except that he thinks the cause is God. We could call it The Force courtesy of Star Wars.
It is not necessarily helpful for a theist or a deist.
Rather than explain what else is wrong with it I use this "kalam".
Premise 1:
Whatever begins to grow grows from a seed.
Premise 2:
A forest began to grow.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the forest grew from one seed.
Or
Premise 1:
Whatever begins as a story has an author.
Premise 2:
A library began to exist.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the library has one author.
Same structure → same flaw.
The Kalam argument for God rests on assumptions that are far from established. It relies on a controversial view of infinity, causation, and the nature of the universe. One of its key claims is that an infinite past is impossible because an actual infinite series of past events cannot exist. Critics argue, however, that this objection misunderstands how infinities function in mathematics and philosophy: an infinite series does not require being “completed” or counted through, and there is no logical contradiction in the idea of a past with no first moment.
Furthermore, the Kalam attempts to move from features of events within the universe—events that begin to exist and have causes—to a claim about the universe as a whole. This move is not obviously justified. The rules governing parts of the universe may not apply to the totality of spacetime itself.
Finally, the argument asserts that an actual infinite cannot exist in the natural world, yet the conclusion often introduces a being described as infinite in knowledge, power, or duration. While defenders draw a distinction between an “actual infinite collection” and “infinite divine attributes,” the shift in how “infinity” is treated raises questions about consistency and selective application.
For these reasons, the Kalam does not succeed in showing that the universe must have a finite past or that a cause of the universe must be a theistic creator. The reasoning depends on contentious assumptions, not established truths, and therefore the argument does not provide the firm foundation for theism that its defenders claim.
TOO SHORT
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) argues that the universe has a cause, but it does not, by itself, justify the claim that this cause is a loving God. To move from “the universe has a cause” to “the cause is omnibenevolent” requires additional premises, such as the cause being personal or morally good, and these premises need independent support. Without addressing the problem of evil, the assumption of a loving God is potentially incoherent: if God is both all-powerful and all-good, the existence of evil could make such a God seem impossible or implausible. Therefore, simply asserting God’s goodness in the KCA is too short; a robust argument would need to defend the coherence of a loving God in the face of evil, as well as provide reasons for attributing moral qualities to the universe’s cause.
FINALLY
The alleged absurdity of an infinite past is sometimes based on the assumption that time must have a first moment. This assumption makes the idea of an infinite sequence of past events seem impossible. But the appearance of impossibility comes only from imagining time as something that must begin and move in one direction from that beginning. If we instead consider that time could be unbounded in the past—without a first moment—then an infinite past is conceptually coherent. Our perception of time flowing in one direction does not establish whether time itself had a beginning. Thus, the supposed absurdity of an infinite past is not a genuine logical contradiction but a misunderstanding of how temporal sequences can work.