Let us discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This is a more modern variant of the plain-vanilla Cosmological Argument that aims at proving that God exists. However, both arguments are flawed. The traditional Cosmological argument runs as follows: Everything that exists must have a cause. The chain of causes cannot be infinite, so there must be a First Cause which is itself uncaused. The First Cause is God. One problem with this argument is that it tries to make a special pleading for God. If we accept (1), that everything must have a cause, then it follows that God must have a cause too. However, (2) and (3) plead that there is a single exception to (1), namely God. No reason or argument is given as to why God should be an exception, other than the assertion in (2) that the chain of causes cannot be infinite. The Kalam Cosmological Argument attempts to avoid this special pleading by modifying the argument. One version of the Kalam argument, put forward but Christian apologist William Lane Craig runs as follows: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. That cause is God. There are a number of objections that have been raised against the Kalam argument. I'll start this discussion by explaining just one of them. We may investigate further objections later in the thread. Dan Barker has referred to the "curious" first premise here. What is meant by "everything that begins to exist"? He points out that this clause implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist, and items that do not begin to exist. We may ask: what items are in the set of items that do not begin to exist? Is God the only item in that set? If so, then the Kalam argument can be re-written as follows: Everything except God has a cause. The universe is not God. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause is of the universe is God. Notice that in this case premise (1) assumes what the Kalam argument is supposed to prove, namely that God exists. It follows that in this case the Kalam argument is merely begging the question. The only way the Kalam argument can be saved is by asserting that there are other things apart from God that did not begin to exist. But in that case, the cause of the universe might not be God and step (4) of the Kalam argument fails as a proof that God exists and created the universe. Can anybody here name a thing that did not begin to exist, apart from God?