At least WLC is consistent and logical, fair play to him he is clever as well. My aim here is concisely counter the argument and not refute them but reduce the arguments to assertions.
This is why I recognise WLC as being clever, the arguments he proposes are not refutable so the best you can do is reduce them to assertions. In a debate situation he sets up an argument which, in the traditional sense, is not refutable so to the audience it appears that he does not lose.
Lets us move on today we are looking at the Cosmological Argument WLC normally presents this thus:-
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
- This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe
Let us go through these in logical order, the obsevation (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause is flawed. The words "begin" and "cause" do not really make sense, time began with the big bang.
You cannot make a presumption based on the behaviour of things in this universe and apply that presumption to things outside of the universe.
This is flawed logic pure and simple, the argument is based on a build up of premises if the first premise is flawed the entire argument is flawed.
The comeback that WLC often comes back with is that 'atheists assert that the universe popped into existence' that is a straw man. I'm no cosmologist as you might have guessed however with regard to the Universe I DO NOT assert it popped into existence my answer is:-
I DO NOT KNOW