Arguments for the Existence of God

[enviousintheeverafter]

Since the philosophy section of this site is incredibly slow, I decided to start a couple threads to try to encourage more traffic to this particular part of the site. The purpose of the thread will be to discuss arguments for the existence of God (cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, etc.)- either in general, or particular arguments. I'll start it off with the Kalam cosmological argument, as endorsed by Craig, which is probably the most popular argument for the existence of God at the moment-

As Craig defends it, the argument consists of two premises, with the conclusion that the universe has a cause of its existence:

P1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
P2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
C1) The universe has a cause of its existence.

Craig then typically argues that "conceptual analysis of what it is to be cause of the universe will recover several of the principal attributes of God, so that the cause takes on the character of a personal Creator of the universe."
(reasonablefaith.org)

In other words-

P1) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;
P2) The universe has a cause (per C1, above)
C2)An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

And, of course, God just is the uncaused, personal Creator of the universe. So is the argument valid? Is it sound?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 69 by 2Dbunk]

As Blastcat said, that day is not today. Why are you celebrating a victory over the currently widely accepted scientific model of the universe BEFORE that victory has been earned?
Do you want to know just how and why the "earth-is-center-of-universe" model was debunked? Through the scientific method! Geocentrism (really, Chrome, you think that word is spelled wrong? Go home dictionary, you're drunk) was promoted for centuries as dogma that ought not to be challenged. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for challenging the model.
Such would not happen today, if you could somehow disprove heliocentrism. If you came up with evidence, you would be resisted and challenged sure, but eventually if your evidence survives peer review, it would have to be accepted. You would not be jailed as a danger to society for promoting it.

You may indeed in the future come up with evidence for God, and may indeed in the future defeat all of the typical, regular atheist arguments and talking points. That day is not today. You have not done it (yet). I honestly don't think you ever will. I, Blastcat and the others will not concede victory to you simply because you have the potential to one day win. The reverse is true for us as well - we may in the future come up with hard evidence against the existence of a god, evidence that cannot be denied. Can I, Blastcat or anyone else celebrate such an accomplishment before it's happened?

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Yours is the wordiest MISUNDERSTANDING I have yet seen among the posts I have visited so far. You may want to re-read my post and come up with a different understanding! If you do not, forgive my choice of semantics, for I mean nothing that you seem to conclude.