The next rabbit out of the hat is
usually God is outside the universe (see part of the parent
Cosmological Argument), which is just nonsensical: if the Universe is
the totality of what exists, you can't have anything outside of it, or
it wouldn't be the totality of existence. Well done, the rabbit just
suffocated inside your magical Fallacy Hat.
However, for the purposes of the
discussion, let's say that there is an Outside to the Universe. If the
arguer wants to avoid turning the argument into mass of fallacies
analogous to a double helping of spaghetti with extra Bad Logic sauce,
he has to admit that his argument is a false one unless he allows
other things besides God to not have been caused.
This is where it gets really funny.
The existence of a personal creator as
described by Craig presupposes personality, which presupposes
complexity. Even Deism presupposes personality, of a sort.
Now, let's bring out Ockham's Razor
again, and see if we can't give Craig's argument an opportunity to get
rid of that beard. As a reminder, it essentially says, don't make things
any more complex than they need to be.
For the argument to remain logical and
not simply a big old sack full of assertions, impersonal objects have to
be admitted into the group of things which are existent without a
beginning. If they are not eliminated in some way - and the argument
doesn't hold together if they are - the possibility that the Universe
had a naturalistic beginning must be admitted into the equation.
Whoops, Ockham's Razor just slipped!
Kalam has had its throat cut.
If a natural explanation is not
eliminated, it is the correct one until proven otherwise. I don't see
any proof of extra-Universal entities which never began coming any time
soon.
Whew. Kalam is nearly as riddled with
bad grammar as the
Ontological Argument.