Of course I can. It's been established for some time now. The Hoyle eternal steady state theory of the universe was rejected over 50 years ago. Science has established that the universe had a beginning. Whether one calls it the "big bang" or whater we know the Universe had a beginning and no modern theory of physics or cosmology can get around the singularity. Further we know that whatever begins to exist has a creator. The universe began to exist thus it had a creator. That creator is God. The Kalaam cosmological argument is irrufutable proof of the existance of God. Backed up by the best modern science has to offer.
For what it’s worth:
Stenger has argued that quantum mechanics disconfirms the first premise of the argument, that is, that something can not come into being from nothing. He postulates that such naturally occurring quantum events are exceptions to this premise, like the Casimir effect and radioactive decay.
Ghazali thought that it is at least theoretically possible for there to be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing that necessitates a first-cause simply by pure deductive reason. He thus undermines one of the essential premises of the first-cause argument.
Muhammad Iqbal also rejects the argument stating, “Logically speaking, then, the movement from the finite to the infinite as embodied in the cosmological argument is quite illegitimate; and the argument fails in toto.” For Iqbal the concept of the first uncaused cause is absurd, he continues: “It is, however, obvious that a finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds.”
Kant for example also rejects any cosmological proof on the grounds that it is nothing more than an ontological proof in disguise. He argued that any necessary object’s essence must involve existence, hence reason alone can define such a being, and the argument becomes quite similar to the ontological one in form, devoid of any empirical premises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
Discuss!
Oh please, don't start with that. Cosmology doesn't prove anything, least of all some godlike being. The Big Bang doesn't prove that there is a beginning.
It shows that there was an event from which certain things proceded, a starting point; it doesn't prove what preceded it!
Nor does it "prove" how it got to be where it was or "who" or "what" caused it to be there. It even doesn't prove that this starting point is the initial event or that before it nothing existed.
If you can assume an eternal uncreated creator why not just do what the Greek did—imagine an eternal universe, or one that eternally oscillates between big bangs for no reason (accessible to our minds) whatsoever? It's an equally valid assumption (but not a proof) as assuming some eternal being that exists "outside" existence.
Using cosmology to "prove" some godlike being is like the ants in my back yard being convinced I created the back yard for them!