> This guy basically believes that whenever science
> explains something, it proves the nonexistence of a God
> or reason behind the universe. I'd like to know how that
> foillows logically.
I don't think he would say "proves." I think he would say his consideration of the evidence "leads him to believe."
Arguments from complexity for a designer are invalid (as he pointed out in this article) because they go like this:
* People are highly complex.
* Therefore they must have been created by a Designer.
However, if the Designer is at least as complex as a person (and this holds true for all conceptions of a personal God), then the same argument holds, and somebody even bigger must have created God.
If not (and this is obviously not true according to the concept of God) then the argument is invalid.
Which it is.
You can certainly believe in God (and I do), but you can't use this particular argument to get there.
Kalam's argument holds that everything with a beginning had a beginner. Since G-d is eternal and unchanging, He has no beginning and does not require a First Cause.
It is a concept that is outside our experience.