Kalam Cosmological argument

Even if all of those things you've pointed out above actually do have a cause that we discover in some new revelation of physics that STILL doesn't make the opening assumption of the argument valid.The very reason the Kalam Cosmological argument exists is because we don't know if the universe has a cause or not. If we DID know it had a cause then the argument would not be required.It is not valid to say "everything we know of has a cause, therefore EVERYTHING has a cause. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.And it's certainly not valid to just claim that everything has a cause. I could just as validly claim that NOT everything has a cause, and my claim would be just as well supported as the first (since we can't possibly know that either are true).And even if we could prove that everything in the universe has to have a cause, it still wouldn't necessarily follow that the universe has a cause. The universe is not in the universe. Does it even make cognitive sense to claim that the universe has a cause? This is where it starts to hurt my head, but can time have a cause? I certainly don't think it makes sense to claim so, anymore than "before the big bang" makes sense if it is taken as t0 (first point in time).Edited by happy_atheist, : No reason given.

I think that just sums it up perfectly. And it's surprisingly hard to admit it, probably because it goes against all common sense or intuition. But then that just goes to show how useless common sense can be when talking about things we don't know the answer to yet.