Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?

[William]

Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?

There has been ongoing debate on this message board re the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its supposed supporting of the traditional Christian idea of "God" being a "supernatural" being, who exists outside of this universe which it created, (from something which did not exist prior to it being made by said supernatural being re the theory of ex nihilo) and that this being is necessarily uncaused, mindful, immaterial, timeless, and spaceless.

That is why I decided to create this thread to explore possible answers to the OPQ.

I think that in some points the two converge - such as God is causeless, and God is mindful.
The departure appears to be that God is immaterial (since there are many stories within the Christian Tradition which have God appear as a material being) and that God is timeless (in the particular understanding that God is eternal rather than God can and does experience time along with the rest of us here in this universe.)

"God is spaceless" at this point appears to me to have no particular meaning. Other are welcome to say what they think that means to them if they so choose.

Here is a general outline of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause: This premise asserts that things don't just pop into existence without a cause. Objects and events have causes that bring them into being.
2. The universe began to exist: This premise is supported by scientific evidence such as the Big Bang theory, suggesting that the universe had a finite beginning in the past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause: Combining the first two premises, the conclusion is drawn that the universe must have a cause for its existence.
4. The cause must be uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial: Since the universe itself had a beginning, its cause must be something beyond the universe and its physical laws. The cause must be uncaused (to avoid infinite regress), timeless (since it caused time), spaceless (since it caused space), and immaterial (since it caused matter).
5. The cause must have a will or intentionality: This follows from the fact that the cause brought the universe into existence at a specific point in time.
6. This cause is what people traditionally call God: The conclusion of the argument is that the cause of the universe possesses attributes that align with the concept of God.

[William]

[The Tanager]

[William]

Premise 4 appears to have items which are not implied in the first three premises.
1. If we accept that the universe been spoken of here is the universe we exist within, and to avoid the infinite regression (what caused the cause ad Infinium) one can agree with an uncaused cause.

Why should we accept the bolded part above?

Why shouldn't we? When scientists speak about the universe, they accept that the universe been spoken of is the universe we exist within.
If the Kalam is talking about some other universe, then of what use is it other than to argue from a circular position?
What use is that, to define the universe as something outside of this universe, and then argue only from that position?

[The Tanager]

Premise 4 appears to have items which are not implied in the first three premises.
1. If we accept that the universe been spoken of here is the universe we exist within, and to avoid the infinite regression (what caused the cause ad Infinium) one can agree with an uncaused cause.

Why should we accept the bolded part above?

Why shouldn't we? When scientists speak about the universe, they accept that the universe been spoken of is the universe we exist within.
If the Kalam is talking about some other universe, then of what use is it other than to argue from a circular position?
What use is that, to define the universe as something outside of this universe, and then argue only from that position?

First off, scientists don't just speak about this universe. They speak about possible other permutations of eneregy/matter outside of this current universe quite a bit.

Second, the Kalam is talking about all energy/matter, not just the current form of energy/matter. That isn't another 'universe', but the stuff that makes up the reality we live in. Why not seek knowledge on that stuff rather than just the current status of that stuff? This isn't circular. It isn't defining the universe as something outside of this universe, but of talking about the energy/matter we see around us and not limiting that discussion to its current state. Why limit our exploration, when we can go beyond that limit?

[William]

The question of this thread topic is.
"Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument support the traditional Christian idea of "God"?"

Do you have any answer to that question?

If so, what is your answer and why?

(btw, I did not reply to most of the rest of Post #3 due to it consisting of unsupported claims (so difficult to address without going off on (a) tangent(s)) and because it is unknown at this point as to why/how the claims are tied in to the thread question.

[The Tanager]

[William]

The traditional Christian idea of "God" encompasses a set of core beliefs and attributes that have been foundational to Christian theology. While interpretations may vary among denominations, some common elements include:
1. Monotheism: Christianity is fundamentally monotheistic, affirming the belief in one God.
2. Omnipotence: God is considered all-powerful, having the ability to accomplish anything consistent with His nature.
3. Omniscience: God is believed to be all-knowing, possessing complete knowledge of past, present, and future.
4. Omnipresence: The traditional Christian concept includes the belief that God is present everywhere simultaneously.
5. Eternal Existence: God is considered eternal, existing without a beginning or end.
6. Immutability: God is seen as unchanging in His nature, character, and purpose.
7. Creator of the Universe: Christians traditionally believe that God is the creator of the universe and all that exists.
8. Trinitarian Nature: Many Christian denominations adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, understanding God as Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit.
These attributes collectively contribute to the understanding of God within traditional Christian theology. Different Christian denominations may emphasize certain aspects more than others, leading to some variations in the specific theological details of the traditional Christian idea of "God."

[The Tanager]

[William]