In a debate with Edwin Curley, William Lane Craig said in his opening statement, "These reasons are independent of one another, so that if even one of them is sound, it furnishes good grounds for believing that God exists. Taken together, they constitute a powerful cumulative case that God exists." http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-existence-of-the-christian-god-the-craig-curley-debate#ixzz2JqYx3lbK In that debate he used three arguments: 1. Kalam2. Teleological3. Moral The first obvious criticism is that the moral argument and Kalam have nothing to do with each other.  There is no "powerful" connection between the cause of the visible universe and moral values.  After all, they could exist independently of each other, theoretically. And, neither require a God. So:  1.  The Kalam argument: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The theist then slips in, usually, "This cause we call God". Well, the theist MAY call it whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it IS God. That is, I call it the Cause of the Universe, and it fits perfectly within a naturalistic framework. After all, for the Cause to be called "God" the theist needs to prove the Cause is ALSO tied to other aspects of God in a sufficient and necessary way. It's not enough to declare "we know the universe had a cause" (Something science has verified, which means Kalam is now redundant.) and use it for God if it equally applies to other explanations.  Craig argues, "If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.” I argue, “If the universe has a cause of its existence, then [we find that] an uncaused, Cause of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.” My argument sounds like a plausible sketch of how an event like a vacuum fluctuation in quantum foam could explain the observable universe.  (The quick analogy is that our universe is like a bubble in a pot of water, sans pot, and the water is the infinite sea of undifferentiated energy) That is, by using Kalam, we both arrive at a proof for our beliefs.  Craig, however, tries to add "intelligent" which is a poorly defined term and certainly only makes sense if there is a Mind, and Minds only make sense if there are Brains.  Brains only make sense if there is matter. Matter only makes sense if there is Time and Space. And Intelligence only makes sense if there is Time. This is one of those examples that Craig tries to overwhelm the audience by piling on too much and hoping they don't recognize his addition of the things he REALLY needs to prove: intelligence or some personal aspect. His argument for the personal aspects of God, are, again, not part of Kalam, but a separate argument all together; the neck of the Whingdingdilly.  2.WLC then moves to the teleological argument.  Well, this is one of the least used arguments used, but Craig being a great orator uses it to great effect on people who are already theists. Here, I am going to counter this argument for the Whingdingdilly's hind legs and point out that there is scientific evidence that people may be prone to belief in God due to brain activity, and not because there is a God. (Similarly some people believe in ghosts, phantoms and other non-existent beings because of the sense of agency and other psychological states, as well as confusion over data we get from the environment and our inability to properly assess it.) For example, pareidolia is common.  You can do it yourself.  Find a richly patterned wallpaper and stare at it for a while. You will see "design" of faces in it. Of course, there was no design of faces, but our human brains evolved to recognize faces, so we are exceptionally good at finding them. This is what Craig preys on - he is hoping people use this evolved trait to extend to the natural world; design and agency. Clearly, there is a reason ID (which was the most serious push of the teleological argument to date) is not taught in schools or is a serious field of study. I don't feel the need to continue with a rebuttal of the teleological argument since it is becoming less used by theists in scholarly circles for good reason. If someone wants to press it, I will continue.  3.The moral argument, or the Whingdingdilly's head, is not a serious concern either and everyone calls it Craig's weakest argument. The reason it is weak is because he presumes: "if objective morals exist, then god exists". This is clearly contradicted by deontology and the vast majority of philosophers. And, if that's not enough to stop Craig's argument, it's enough to point out that saying "objective morals SEEM to exist, therefore they exist".  Yes, there need to be arguments to explain this seeming truth, but it would have been a lot harder for Craig to argue his "killing children just seems wrong" in ancient times when it was a normal practice. And, I might add, the world today kills millions of children in the form of abortion and has legalized it.  If "killing children" is objectively wrong, then we, collectively, don't seem to realize it. This means the objectivist must add certain qualifiers, which under deontology are perfectly explainable. "It's wrong to torture babies for no reason".  Well, but on naturalism, we have reasons not to do things for no reason, whether it's torturing babies, killing witches, or stoning children, or maintaining realms of eternal torture.   All in all, the arguments for God all seem to be flawed, and, even if they are persuasive in any one area, they don't seem to get us to the argument the the Whingdingdilly (God) exists. That is, let's say the Moral argument works.  It only shows, then, that there may be a God of Moral Values that was created when the universe was created. Or, if Kalam is an argument for God, it only shows that the God that created the universe was capable of creating a universe, not making it appear designed (after all the Kalam God could be a Cause-maker, and he eternally pumps out causes that, in this one case, caused this universe). Or, if teleological argument is true, it only shows that the cause of the universe may have caused something to design a universe...  So, my challenge to the theist is prove the actually Whingdingdilly exists, not each of it's attributes, which can be used to prove more mundane and naturalistic claims. Yes, the elephant, giraffe, camel, rhino and reindeer exist.The Whingdingdilly is what needs to be argued for. So far I have not, to date, seen any theist argue why each argument must support the other. I have seen no argument the the "cumulative argument" is sound. Can someone provide a logical argument for why the "cumulative argument" should be considered seriously?