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!
Stenger also acknowledged there are least 10 other quantum postulates which would refute his argument and conceded that there is no consensus as to "which is the right one". Further, the others you cite all require an infinite regression to make sense of their arguments. I don't know where wikipedia got its information on Al-Ghazali but it is the exact opposite of what he argued in his Kitab al-Iqtisad fi'l-I'tiqua where he stated that an infinite regression of past events is impossible because, essentially, it would be impossible for the present to arrive. Ghazali went on from this to acknowledge that the universe must have had a beginning the cause of which he ascribed to God, the Eternal. And he came to this conclusion centuries before our knowledge of the expanding universe and residual cosmological radiation. The consensus among physicists and metaphyisicists is that infinite regression ultimately renders logical inference an absurdity and is generally considered an argument stopper. Kant fails to explain why the universe should be considered a necessary object and in fact fails to identify any "necessary object" apart from abstractions such as numbers or sets. To merely assume, a priori, the universe to be a necessary object merely begs the question in favor of atheism.
With the help of instruments we are able to detect "other reality" which is outside the scope of our "five senses" and become aware of broader existence. Obviously what we perceive as reality is not all of what is out there. When we say "nothing" it may be "nothing" or "nonexistenct" to us (because out five senses do not detect it) but it density mean it's not out there. So, "something out of nothing" is not necessarily something out of nothing. As the Taoist wisdom says "the world is the way it is, whether we understand it or not."
Our limitation prohibits us from formulating theological or any other type of absolute truth simply because we don't know everything there is to know. And the more we know the more we discover of what is out there resembles less and less what human fancy imaged it to be.
The underlying problem is that an artificial separation was established between empiricism and “pure reason” (science and philosophy).
Aristotle knew the importance of both for the purpose of finding truth in an academic sense.
But philosophers of the past half millenia or more have fooled themselves into believing pure reason can enlighten. So we have people like Hegel proposing that altruism can’t exist in the absence of civilization, and Kant trying to convince himself that reality is the creation of subjective mind.
They are fools, I daresay.
Quoting these people and accepting there assertions implicitly give the appearace that you are skeptical toward anything except that which *favors* your preconceived notions.
Example:
Ghazali thought that it is at least theoretically possible for there to be an infinite regress,
Somebody I never heard of THOUGHT (not proved) that it is theoretically possible (NO evidence) for there to be an infinite regress (NOT defined; petitio principii)
But somehow, because it is stated in a condescending tone and juxtaposed with other unsubstantiated quotes from other unknowns, who attempt to borrow credibility by including ill-defined third-hand references to scientific buzzwords, this is implicitly claimed to be distinguished from, and superior, to "FAITH".
Translated to the vernacular: unless and until you can walk through these points in such a way that everyone can understand them, from first principles, they are not worth a plugged nickel.(*)
Cheers!
(*) The Christian author C.S. Lewis once said that unless you can translate your thought into one syllable words, you don't understand it yourself. Dick Feynmann said much the same thing (allowing for the mathematical sophistication necessary to understand physics) in saying that, unless you could describe a physics topic in such a way that college freshmen could follow it, you didn't understand it yourself.
Try doing more than cutting-and-pasting and beating your chest, Tarzan-style.