The Kalam cosmological argument

I think it is a flawed argument, and this is why: Wrong, entropy can decrease, at least, in an open system. And even in a closed system, entropy can locally decrease. Obviously. "Has started" is a loaded term, and might not be the right way of puttng it when concerning the universe. Again, "started" is probably not the right term. Unevidenced. There is no evidence for this. Further, "cause" implies a "before", there was no "before" the big bang, just like there is no "north" of the north pole. Unevidenced. Exactly. Within spacetime there is. The universe is spacetime. It hasn't even been shown there is a first cause.

Well no, like has been pointed out, you can add to infinity, it would simply stay infinity. There are more than 1 infinities, and some are larger than others (no, I cannot explain this (sorry), at least not like it should be explained with math equations). Cavediver explained this. That's not the "cause" of the North Pole. In fact, the magnetic North pole is not the actual North Pole, which is the axial North pole. The "cause" of the North pole (if it can be called that) is that that is the point hrough which the axis of the Earth runs. If you'd reach the big bang, you'd be dead.

Hello Nuimshaan and welcome to EvC! I've seen you've gotten quite some responses from people, I just felt like adding to them. Big bang theory is complete. It desccribes the universe from t=10^-43 seconds and onwards. No, not really, let me see if I can correct it for you. No, there was a rapid expansion of space and time itself, there was no space yet, and no explosion to happen within it. No. Since there was no explosion, there were no "pieces", what was there was superheated plasma. No. They first formed hydrogen and helium, the hard round balls wouldn't come about until much later. No. The earth is a result of the acumulation of matter of the accretion disc left after the sun formed. There was no "Big Bomb". Since no one claims there should be a "Big Bomb" (except you, of course), no one is addressing it. Since the "Big Bomb" has nothing to do with the Big Bang, I wouldn't see how. Indeed. Perhaps, but no one is saying there had to be a "Big Bomb". Since there was no "Big Bomb", not really, no. I'm a "Big Bang supporter", and if you ask me that question, I would say: "What "Big Bomb"?" I don't know anyone who proposes that. No one admits that, making the rest of your point rather moot.