...
Show me a single hole in the argument. Ball is in your court.
Wow. I guess all the accolades from Notre Dame and other universities were idiotic too. Yes, Notre Dame is a Cahtolic school. But Plantinga is a reformed protestant, so that won't fly either. You're embarrassing yourself.
Then you do not understand it. Show me one thing about it that is woeful.
Go. Challenge accepted. No more dithering. No more subjective assertions without proof. Take it apart. Don't delay.
OK. The Kalam Cosmological Argument (hereafter KCA), for those not up to speed on this aspect of supernaturalist apologetics, goes like this;
1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The first mistake is the assertion that the universe began to exist. Well we don't actually know that to be the case. The universe may have existed forever. The physics tells us that everything winds back to a point at which the science begins to break down, the so-called 'singularity' that preceded the cosmic expansion known as the Big Bang. Science can't reliably go back any further, because there's no evidence, and because the mathematics results in a singularity, which is physics-speak for "we have no idea what this means, other than we know it tells us that we need a new mathematics". The conditions prior to the cosmic expansion, may have persisted for eternity. There may have been an eternal process of expansion & contraction. Because point 2 doesn't necessarily stand, point 3 does not necessarily follow. Now, modern apologists like William Lane Craig, who put together the KCA, offers a proof of the second point, namely;
2.1) An infinite temporal regress of events would constitute an actual infinite.
2.2) An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.3) Therefore an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
The thing is, Craig's invisible magic friend is said to be omniscient, which means he knows that Craig has said that an actual infinite cannot exist. Being omniscient, he also knows that he knows this. Further, he knows that he knows that he knows. And if he is omniscient, that knowledge continues
ad infinitum. What is more, God must know an infinite number of things, which Craig says can't be the case. We're left with a choice; either this God character doesn't exist, or 2.2 is incorrect, in which case the KCA falls.
As for Plantinga, PZ Myers does a pretty good job of undermining his alleged brilliance, and frankly, I can't out-do Myers in this, so ...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/29/alvin-plantinga-gives-philosop/