The Kalam cosmological argument

Hello everyone on EvC,I've been reading this forum for some time, and I must say that it is not what I expected.
From previous experiences forum discussions are half spam, many arguments are said dozens of times, maybe a few new ones, and a lot grapped out of thin air without saying the sources.Here it is much better, discussions have a good topic, no jumping from argument to argument.If you dont mind I will use this forum also to gather arguments, as on creationists sites they only say arguments for creation, on evolutionists for evolution. And maybe sometimes a reaction on a argument.
You'd probable get my point now.---------------------off topic ends here---------------------------The Kalam cosmological argument, pretty simple to put in a syllogism.
(for those who dont know that term: Syllogism - Wikipedia)Syllogism 1
Premise 1: Entropy always grows (second law of thermodynamics)
Premise 2: The universe has not reached total entropy.
Conclusion :The universe has started/has not excisted for an infinite amount of time.Syllogism 2
Premise 1: The universe has started
Premise 2: Everything that happens/starts has a cause.
Conclusion : The universe has a cause (to excist/what started it)Syllogism 3
Premise 1: The universe has a cause
Premise 2: Within spacetime there is the law of causality (cause and effect)
Conclusion: The "First cause" isnt inside spacetime.I would like to hear what you think of this/where the problems are in this argument.

---

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
- Einstein

But the average trend will be towards entropy, otherwise the second law of thermodynamics doesnt goes ...(what is the right word? Up? count?)But premise 1/2 can be replaced by anything that proves the universe is not infinite, like: if the universe excisted for an infinite time, we could not have a tomorrow. As we would have more than infinite days. But the question I have, is: what caused the big bang?
Because it either must have a cause, or a supernatural power created it. (To translate in your example: When you're reached the north pole, you've found the cause for it being the north pole the magnetic field. If you've reached the big bang, you would find the cause.)Oh and you're right PaulK. I ain't a native English speaker, I agree with you that begins fits the context better.Edited by PrinceGhaldir, : No reason given.

---

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
- Einstein

The point is that time passes. But with these, you are not saying/proving anything, you only move your problem somewhere else. I dont really get what you mean with this (and the paragraph).---------------------------nwr------------------------- I totally agree with you, good piece!About your quantum physics, a piece out of: "In Defense Of The Kalam Cosmological Argument" by William Lane Craig"The central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which [virtual particles] depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which 'this dynamism of empty space is but a formal abstraction lacking physical reality.' The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause"Ofcourse this is only one case, but I think that nothing happens without a cause. But what the cause is, if we can even see it, that indeed is doubtful. That's right it is a falsifiable theorie, all we can do is disprove it we cant prove it. But you also could say, that you can assume its correct untill proven wrong. I dont really see a point in saying that it is wrong (in this case). But if the universe is expanding for an infinite amount of time, the universe would be infinitely big. So I dont think that the entropy would reduce.

---

"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
- Einstein

Nuimshaan, please first learn where you are talking about, instead of drawing conclusions for someone who knows better...Noetherian Atheist, your main point is (correct me if I am wrong) that for God to excist there must be a cause for Him.But you forget one thing, God is almighty. This is pretty much the end of the discussion about it, God is almighty and infinite.
This is one point where you can't argue about, this is one thing that we (as christians) believe. Simply because god2 is totally unbiblical you cant discuss it.I am not trying to end this discussion but it is of no use, I cant proof the whole bible, thats why you call it believing, science covers the part you dont believe (thats the proven part). Some parts you cant proof so you believe them (whether you like it or not )Dr Adequate, you are correct there could be a time at which the entropy stays the same, but I guess the chances for that arent very good?Btw Noetherian Atheist, why Noetherian? All I could find is theorie in mathematics?Edited by PrinceGhaldir, : No reason given.

Noetherian Atheist, if I am correct your middle part of your post practically says that for the argument to be correct you first have to "break" the chain of causes (cause2, cause 3 etc). As theoratically it can go on into infinity. Right? (before I am making a whole post out of a misunderstanding)By the way, sorry that I wont be able to reply to every post. I've just started a study (chemistry) and such. Also I dont want to spend too much time on a post, as I noticed on another forum eventually my posts got pretty long, trying to respond fully and correct to everyone, taking to much of my time IMO.