Do Virtual Particles Prove Something Can Come from Nothing? (William Lane Craig) firstcauseargument 2026-09-20 | Do Virtual Particles Prove Something Can Come from Nothing? (William Lane Craig)
thunderf00t vs William Lane Craig - Are You Kidding? firstcauseargument 2022-07-16 | Internet troll Phil Mason thunderf00t actually thinks he's smart enough to take on William Lane Craig! After this video was uploaded, thunderf00t had it promptly deleted illegally. Feel free to download it here: mediafire.com/file/e38rjcy6f5hxhx6/Thunderf00t_Destroys_William_Lane_Craig..._by_D%2Ack_Measuring_%2521_%255BMirror__Birdieupon%255D.mp4/file
The Kalam Cosmological Argument for God firstcauseargument 2020-03-15 | #apologetics #kalamcosmologicalargument #philfernandes #cosmologicalargumentLecture by Phil Fernandes
Science and Religion - Interview with Robert Jastrow firstcauseargument 2020-02-18 | #robertjastrow #astronomy #physics #science #religion #apologetics #God #atheists #atheism #agnostics #agnosticism #theists #theism #ChristiansLegendary broadcaster Hugh Downs talks with Robert Jastrow, Director of the Mt. Wilson Institute. Jastrow is a globally renowned astronomer associated with the cutting edge of investigation into celestial physics and cosmology. In this lively conversation, Downs and Jastrow investigate the question of God’s presence in the universe.
Lawrence Krauss Lied About Alexander Vilenkin and the BVG Theorem firstcauseargument 2020-02-08 | #lawrencekrauss #alexandervilenkin #williamlanecraig #apologetics #atheist #christian #science #scientist #physics #astronomy #godWilliam Lane Craig shows how Lawrence Krauss deliberately deleted portions of an E-mail Krauss was sent (from Alexander Vilenkin) where Vilenkin described the BVG Theorem and the beginning of the universe. More information on Krauss found here: reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem
Kalam Cosmological Argument in a Nutshell firstcauseargument 2020-01-18 | #kalamcosmologicalargument #God #cosmology #apologetics #leestrobelLee Strobel shares how all evidence points to the universe having a beginning and ultimately to being made by God.
Did William Lane Craig Misrepresent Roger Penrose (or Is skydivephil a Liar)? firstcauseargument 2016-12-24 | Famous Cosmologist Roger Penrose is known for the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model. William Lane Craig defines it and interacts.Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/roger-penrose-and-cosmology#ixzz4TiV63mkf
Top 10 Worst Objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument from Internet Atheists firstcauseargument 2015-11-22 | Lecture by William Lane Craig. This is probably one of the most entertaining lectures [titled "Objections So Bad I Couldn't Have Made Them Up (or, the World's Ten Worst Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument)] Dr. William Lane Craig has given. He deals with the top 10 worst objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Many of these arguments were made by unsophisticated and uneducated (at least uneducated in philosophy or science) atheists on the Internet and youtube. Here's the Kalam Cosmological Argument:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the unvierse has a cause.Here's the list of the worst objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument:1. Craig says that he believes in God on the basis of the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart, not on the basis of the kalam cosmological argument. In fact, he says that even if the argument were refuted, he would still believe in God. This is blatant hypocrisy on Craig's part.2. The kalam cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle.3. The argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. In the first premise "cause" means "material cause," while in the conclusion it does not.4. The first premise is based upon the fallacy of composition. It fallaciously infers that because everything in the universe has a acause, therefore the whole universe has a cause.5. If the universe began to exist, then it must have come from nothing. That is quite plausible, since there are no constraints on nothing, and so nothing can do anything, including producing the universe.6. Nothing ever begins to exist! For the material of which something consists precedes it. So it is not true that the universe began to exist.7. The argument equivocates on "begins to exist." In (1) it means to begin "from a previous material state," but in (2) it means "not from a material state."8. The argument is logically self-contradictory. For it says that everything has a cause, yet concludes that there is a first uncaused cause..9. The cause mentioned in the argument's conclusion is not different from nothing. For timelessness, changelessness, spacelessness, etc. are all purely negative attributions which are also true of nothingness. Thus, the argument might as well be taken to prove that the universe came into being from nothing.10. (From Richard Dawkins:) If "god" is the "terminator" of an infinite regress, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.
Eastwooding Richard Dawkins by William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2014-12-10 | William Lane Craig utilizes the same tactic Clint Eastwood did during the 2012 Republican National Convention (where he spoke to an empty podium that was supposed to represent Barack Obama). Here Craig speaks at Watermark Church where he refutes Richard Dawkins' (author of The God Delusion) objections to the moral argument, cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the ontological argument. Richard Dawkins has never responded to any of Craig's refutations. In fact, Dawkins refuses to debate Craig one-on-one.
Does Quantum Physics Provide an Exception to Premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? firstcauseargument 2014-10-14 | Does Quantum Physics Provide an Exception to Premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Transcript: http://truthbomb.blogspot.com/2014/10/does-quantum-physics-provide-exception.html
Defending the BGV Theorem firstcauseargument 2014-08-27 | Magis Center - In this videocast, Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for The Magis Center, answers two common questions that arise when talking about the BVG Theorem. The first question concerns whether or not the value of the upper limit velocity of physical energy affects the conclusions of the BVG Theorem. The second concerns why it is necessary that there be an upper limit velocity to physical energy.
Does Causality Apply Outside of Space and Time? firstcauseargument 2014-08-26 | Article by Frank Turek: During a radio debate I had with an atheist recently, I pointed out that the universe had a beginning and thus needs a cause. He responded by claiming that since there was no space or time prior to the creation event we shouldn’t appeal to the law of causality to claim that the creation event was caused. CONT'D: http://crossexamined.org/causality-apply-outside-space-time
How Should a Christian View the Big Bang Theory? firstcauseargument 2014-06-16 | Ken Wytsma, Founder of The Justice Conference and Pastor of Antioch Church in Bend, OR, discusses the Big Bang Theory and explains why he accepts it askquestions.tv
Power of the Universe firstcauseargument 2014-04-22 | Have you ever marveled at the power of the universe? The endless stars and cosmic expanse that creates awe and wonder has power beyond comprehension. It illuminates the heavens and provides a sense of infinitesimal and inconsequential significance. But the God that created this world and this universe believes you to worthy of the greatest sacrifice in the entirety of existence. Christ on the cross. This video will show you the power of creation, and the even greater power of the Creator behind it all.
The Oscillating Universe: Carl Sagan vs William Lane Craig firstcauseargument 2014-03-29 | William Lane Craig refutes Carl Sagan's idea of the oscillating universe theory.
The Cosmos Just Is?: Carl Sagan vs William Lane Craig firstcauseargument 2014-03-29 | Is the cosmos all that is ever was or ever will be? Carl Sagan and William Lane Craig debate the idea that the universe just is.
BICEP 2 Project and the Big Bang - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2014-03-26 | Fox News (March 21, 2014) - Researchers with the BICEP2 experiment have set the world's cosmologists buzzing with the announcement that they've detected the fingerprints of inflation — the exponential expansion that put the "bang" in the Big Bang. With the new paper and research being released purporting new empirical evidence on the relationship between quantum mechanics and gravity, which suggests inflationary cosmology. William Lane Craig was called in by Fox News to discuss these findings. For more information: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/new-evidence-for-inflation
If God created the universe who created God? - Andrew Wilson firstcauseargument 2014-03-21 | A response by Andrew Wilson to an objection received on bigobjections.co.uk.
Where Did God Come From? - J. P. Holding firstcauseargument 2014-03-21 | JP Holding (tectonics.org) speaks to a group of students on the cosmological argument and the existence of God.
The Universe Just Is? - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2014-03-18 | William Lane Craig speaks on the nature of time with respect to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The universe just is?
Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument Circular and Unscientific? firstcauseargument 2014-03-17 | An often-cited objection (by "Counter Apologist" - a college student) against the Kalam Cosmological Argument is answered by William Lane Craig. Does the Kalam Cosmological Argument engage in circular reasoning? Is it unscientific? How does the A Theory and B Theory of Time relate to the KCA? Is the cause before or after the effect in the KCA? Also, should we approach science as an atheistic naturalist in our presuppositions?
The Cosmos: Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2014-02-22 | Neil deGrasse Tyson is the host of the new Cosmos television series, based on Carl Sagan's original program. William Lane Craig interacts with an interview with Tyson on this new prime-time series and the philosophical direction it seems to be taking.
Gods Not Dead - Rice Broocks firstcauseargument 2014-02-11 | Mid-Cities Community Church (April 14, 2013) - Lecture by Rice Broocks.
Cosmos and Carl Sagan: A Refutation firstcauseargument 2014-02-09 | Speaker: theologian and theoretical astrophysicist Robert C. Newman. Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos' is evangelism for secular humanism. His treatment of Christianity is critiqued, as are his oscillating big-bang cosmology and naturalistic view of the origin of life. There is evidence for making a rational choice between worldviews.
Robert Jastrows Struggle of God and Agnosticism firstcauseargument 2014-02-04 | Robert Jastrow explains his struggles of being an agnostic and accepting the implication of a beginning of the universe, which would entail a creator.
Multiverse Theory: Avoiding Evidence of Design firstcauseargument 2014-01-30 | Which requires more faith: a belief in multiple universes or a belief in the intelligent design of our universe? On this episode of ID The Future, host David Boze explores the ideas found in a recent Harper's Magazine article by MIT physicist and author Alan Lightman. Some physicists attempt to side-step the intelligent design implications of our finely-tuned universe by suggesting that ours is merely one of countless universes, each with its own laws and constants.Lightman: "If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe...is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn't true."
The Universe is Just Necessary? - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2014-01-27 | Is it true that the universe is metaphysically necessary and needs no explanation? William Lane Craig answers.
Subtracting Infinite Coins?: Question on Actual Infinite Things - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2014-01-27 | William Lane Craig answers a question on an actual number of things via coins.
The Universe Began to Exist - Stephen C. Meyer, PhD firstcauseargument 2014-01-13 | In this excerpt from his message at our 2012 National Conference, Dr. Stephen Meyer tells the story of how Hubble showed Einstein that the universe was not eternal but must have had a beginning.
Alexander Vilenkin Says William Lane Craig is Right About BGV Theorem firstcauseargument 2013-12-28 | Read all about Lawrence Krauss' lie about William Lane Craig and the BGV Theorem:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theoremAlexander Vilenkin (an agnostic) has become a nightmare to atheists (like Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss) because his BGV Theorem (Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem) has shown that the universe must have a beginning no matter what scientific model you propose (like a multiverse, cyclic ekpyrotic model, quantum vacuum fluctuation models, etc.). The reaction to Vilenkin's BGV Theorem has led many atheists to deliberately take him out of context in order to make it look like he didn't say what he meant! Much to his embarrassment, Victor Stenger received an email from Vilenkin that told him (Stenger) he believed the universe had a beginning [1]. Lawrence Krauss (in his debate with William Lane Craig) deliberately and shamelessly deleted portions of an email he received from Vilenkin and tried to make it look like Vilenkin believed the universe may not have had a beginning. However, Vilenkin's private email to Krauss was made public and it showed that Vilenkin argued that the universe indeed had a beginning [2]. Incidentally, William Lane Craig debated both Stenger and Krauss. Stenger and Krauss accused Craig of misrepresenting Vilenkin. Well, Vilenkin doesn't think so. It's no surprise Vilenkin said this to Craig: "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately" [3]. Stenger and Krauss both refuse to apologize to Craig and Vilenkin.Notes:1. Atheist Peter Millican put himself in a world of hurt by using Victor Stenger as his source on Alexander Vilenkin and the BGV Theorem: youtube.com/watch?v=ARsDRtTT_cUAnd:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/current-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe2. This must-read article proves that Lawrence Krauss deleted portions of Alexander Vilenkin's E-mail to make it look like he said something he didn't mean (Krauss' tactic here warrants faculty investigation; possibly suspension): http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theoremAnd:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkvckQG71oc3. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem
Does the Universe Have an Explanation? - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-12-17 | William Lane Craig Craig receives a question on what it means for the universe to have an 'explanation'.
The Ultimate Source of Power in the Universe - R. C. Sproul firstcauseargument 2013-11-30 | In this excerpt from "The Consequences of Ideas," R.C. Sproul explains primary causality and affirms that God is the ultimate source of power in the universe.TranscriptI would think it would be a more than safe bet to say that 99% of the people who are alive in the world, and even 99% of Christian people in the world today, think in terms of the universe's operating on a daily basis on the basis of its own power. The assumption of our modern worldview is somewhat mechanical. Namely, that there is such a thing as the laws of nature, which laws operate according to inherent power. That is, power within objects—forces within this world that have built-in power.So the one thing causes another thing, which causes another thing, which causes another thing. And that that power is real and active. Again, the theologian asks the question, "Well, does that mean the universe operates without any assistance from God other than His imparting the initial motion, or the initial power to his universe at the time of creation?"Again, that basic assumption that we make every time we watch a pool game, or watch other series of events that take place before our eyes, is an assumption that not every philosopher has accepted in history, and though Descartes' accepted it to a degree, some of his disciples challenged it, and challenged it with a vengeance. And so the problem that we're dealing with here philosophically, and it becomes a major problem when we deal with questions of theology, is the relationship between what's called primary causality and secondary causality.Now, what's the difference? Primary causality refers to the ultimate source of power for every action. And, classically and historically the Christian faith affirms that the ultimate power in the universe, by which and upon which every other power depends, not only originally, but moment by moment, is the power of God.Remember the Apostle Paul, when he debated with the Athenian philosophers, said that it was in God "we live, and move, and have our being." And you recall when we looked at the early stages of philosophy in the pre-Socratic era, that one of the major questions that philosophers were discussing was the question of motion. What makes anything move?—which is really a question of causality.And so, the Christian view has always been that God is not only the prime mover in the sense of the first mover, but that no motion can take place in this world—ever—no power can be asserted at any time apart from the power of God. That God does not create a universe that functions or operates independently from His moment-to-moment operating of it. But the Christian idea is, there is no inherent power in nature, but that nature's power is always dependent upon the primary source of power, who is God. Now, people don't think like that in the twentieth century. Here, a secular view of the world has virtually captured the thinking of people today.
Calum Miller vs Kalam Cosmological Argument - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-11-26 | William Lane Craig responds to Calum Miller's criticism of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Evidence for Gods Existence firstcauseargument 2013-11-25 | A short film on the existence of God through information in science and the beginning of the universe.
Lawrence Krauss Abuses Science firstcauseargument 2013-11-15 | Lawrence Krauss flies in the face of reality and science by suggesting that physics claims something can come from nothing, and an example of this would be quantum mechanics. No serious thinker would agree with this. William Lane Craig and Alexander Vilenkin (who is not a Christian) explain.
God and the Big Bang - David Wilkinson, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-10-27 | University of St Andrews (18 February 2010) - Astrophysicist and theologian David Wilkinson speaks on the Big Bang with relation to God.
Evidence Lawrence Krauss Misrepresents Alexander Vilenkin firstcauseargument 2013-09-25 | "I think you represented what I wrote about the BGV theorem in my papers and to you personally very accurately." - Alexander Vilenkin's e-mail to William Lane Craig, dated September 6, 2013In their debate in Australia (2013), Lawrence Krauss accused William Lane Craig of misrepresenting Alexander Vilenkin and the BGV Theorem. To prove his point Krauss presented his private e-mail from Vilenkin. However, Craig noticed a number of ellipsis in the e-mail and wanted to know what Krauss deleted. Krauss said he deleted portions of the e-mail because they were "technical." Guess what? Vilenkin's uncensored e-mail to Krauss has been made public and it paints a different picture than the one Krauss presented. Here's the uncensored e-mail from Vilenkin to Krauss:===========================Hi Lawrence,Any theorem is only as good as its assumptions. The BGV theorem says that if the universe is on average expanding along a given worldline, this worldline cannot be infinite to the past.A possible loophole is that there might be an epoch of contraction prior to the expansion. Models of this sort have been discussed by Aguirre & Gratton and by Carroll & Chen. They had to assume though that the minimum of entropy was reached at the bounce and offered no mechanism to enforce this condition. It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning.On the other hand, Jaume Garriga and I are now exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply. In bubbles of negative vacuum energy, expansion is followed by cocntraction, and it is usually assumed that this ends in a big crunch singularity. However, it is conceivable (and many people think likely) that singularities will be resolved in the theory of quantum gravity, so the internal collapse of the bubbles will be followed by an expansion. In this scenario, a typical worldline will go through a succession of expanding and contracting regions, and it is not at all clear that the BGV assumption (expansion on average) will be satisfied.I suspect that the theorem can be extended to this case, maybe with some additional assumptions. But of course there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science, especially in matters like the creation of the universe. Note for example that the BGV theorem uses a classical picture of spacetime. In the regime where gravity becomes essentially quantum, we may not even know the right questions to ask.Alex===========================William Lane Craig's reaction to this uncensored e-mail:===========================Whoa! That puts a very different face on the matter, doesn't it? Why didn't Krauss read the sentence, "It seems to me that it is essentially equivalent to a beginning"? Because it was too technical? Is this the transparency, honesty, and forthrightness that Krauss extols? (By the way, Vilenkin's criticism of these models is the same one that Vilenkin makes in his Cambridge paper: far from showing an eternal past, these models actually feature a universe with a common beginning point for two arrows of time.)And why did Krauss delete Vilenkin's caveat that the BGV theorem can, in his estimation, be extended to cover the case of an expanding and contracting model such as Garriga and Vilenkin are exploring? And why delete the remark that such a model is usually assumed to be incorrect? It's evident that Vilenkin's email was selectively edited to give it the spin Krauss wanted.===========================Lawrence Krauss is in deep trouble for taking Vilenkin out of context like this. This proves Krauss is more interested in ideology than scientific evidence. This dishonesty shows he fails as a serious academic and leading thinker in physics and science. To read more on Lawrence Krauss' misuse of Alexander Vilenkin go here (this a must-read article!): http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem
Richard Dawkins: Literally Nothing is Something firstcauseargument 2013-08-12 | This video comes from Birdieupon. Is Dawkins confused over claims that the universe can come "from nothing"? Material incorporated under Fair Use for critical, journalistic, educational and satirical purposes. The latter approach is encouraged by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss themselves, who describe satire and ridicule as "legitimate" forms of argumentation, and affirm that "there's no-one whose views are not subject to question".
Theistic Implications of Big Bang Cosmology - Stephen Meyer, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-07-20 | Lecture by Stephen Meyer.
Science, God & Creation - magisreasonfaith.org firstcauseargument 2013-07-06 | http://magisreasonfaith.org - Robert Spitzer gives scientific evidence for the existence of God. Buy Spitzer's book New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy: http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833
Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin Out of Context! firstcauseargument 2013-06-01 | When physicist Alexander Vilenkin (who is not a Christian) showed evidence that the universe began to exist via his BVG Theorem (or Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem), atheists flipped and tried to start a deliberate dishonest rumor that Vilenkin NEVER claimed the universe had a beginning! This rumor has been started by none other than New Atheist member Victor Stenger, and many of his mindless followers believe him. Unfortunately, Peter Millican got duped by this rumor when he debated William Lane Craig. But Craig set him straight.
Attacking Causality is Self-Refuting - R. C. Sproul, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-05-31 | The lawof causality showsthat an effect must have a cause (the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on this law). Oddly, enough, atheists are attacking this premise! Science simply cannot be done without causality. RC Sproul shows that attacking causality is self-refuting:"The first question we ask of those who attack causality is Why? What is the reason for or the cause of the attack on cause? There must be a cause for the denial of cause. The attack on cause is self-refuting, for there must be a cause for the attack. Suppose someone says there is no cause for the attack on cause. That might satisfy us because it 'explains' why there need be no cause for the attack on cause. But then we must ask, what caused our satisfaction with no cause? Is the cause of the satisfaction with the causeless attack on cause that there is no such thing as cause? Here causelessness is the cause of our being satisfied with causelessness. So even causelessness is enlisted in the service of cause."- R. C. Sproul, John Gerstner, and Arthur Lindsley, Classical Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 110.
The New Atheists and The Cosmological Argument firstcauseargument 2013-05-10 | Peter S. Williams shows how the New Atheists (like Richard Dawkins) underestimate and strawman the cosmological argument for God's existence.
Why Think Whatever Begins to Exist Has a Cause? firstcauseargument 2013-04-11 | William Lane Craig answers questions on the Kalam Cosmological Argument's crucial first premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause! Are atheists right that something can pop into existence uncaused out of nothing?
A Rabbi Looks at the Kalam Argument firstcauseargument 2013-03-21 | A Rabbi shows how popular and convincing Dr. William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument is! This is in response to Rabbi Adam Jacobs' article "An Iron-Clad Proof of God."
Kalam Cosmological Argument: A Scientific Fact - logosapologia.org firstcauseargument 2013-02-18 | http://www.logosapologia.org - Logos Apologia made and edited this awesome video which demonstrates the scientific fact of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's existence. Over and over again, it has been demonstrated that science (contrary to popular stereotypes) is on the side of theists and not atheists. From Logos Apologia:"Everything that begins to exist has a cause.The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause.Why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because there was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang—nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature—something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:•spaceless because it created space•timeless because it created time•immaterial because it created matter•powerful because it created out of nothing•intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed•personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices).Turek & Geisler. I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. CrosswayBooks; 2004.Thanks to Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. William Lane Craig, RC Sproul, as well as Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III"
The Law of Causality and Miracles - John Lennox, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-01-27 | If science is based on the law of causality then do miracles get in the way? Scientist and philosopher John Lennox explores this question, which was made popular by David Hume.
Gods Existence: Argument from First Cause - Peter Kreeft, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-01-24 | Peter Kreeft speaks on the first cause argument for God's existence (sometimes known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument).
The Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem and the Cosmological Argument firstcauseargument 2013-01-17 | Reasons to Believe's Joe Aguirre, Dave Rogstad, PhD and Jeff Zweerink, PhD discuss the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem (or BVG Theorem) and the beginning of the universe. Related:How Atheists Take Alexander Vilenkin (& the BVG Theorem) Out Of Context:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z79FGmh50Xo
Is A-Theory of Time Incompatible with the Kalam Cosmological Argument? - William Lane Craig, PhD firstcauseargument 2013-01-09 | Is the A-Theory of Time (in context to the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument that the universe began to exist) problematic for the Kalam Cosmological Argument? William Lane Craig answers.
Is the Causal Principle Incompatible with the Kalam Cosmological Argument? firstcauseargument 2013-01-09 | Does the Causal Principle Only Apply to Rearranged Matter? Is it impossible to apply the causal principle to something coming into existence ex nihilo (out of nothing)? Isn't it true that nothing ever begins to exist because we're just a rearrangement of matter? William Lane Craig answers these questions.
