Then perhaps it's time for you to articulate your version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Just to establish a baseline for our dialogue.
The argument is very clear from Gazzali and Ibn Sina that the necessary principle applies to all occurrences. And referring to the raqtan or inferred as the immediate occurrence at the Big Bang was cloven asunder was also an occurrence and that's Gazzali kithab allkthisadh. So the argument is that every occurrence has a cause. If one is to go with the Big Bang theory, time was born with the Big Bang thus with out an infinite regression and a Big Bang the argument does not state that there was a time prior to it. The aalam is described as everything that exists. Of course Gazzali takes it to "The God" where he says Aalam is everything that exists "Other than God" and his argument was cosmological with an ontology in mind. Thus, the concept does not go against any established cosmology and you actually presented them.
The ultimate point is that the possibility of an infinite regression is an impossibility in the classical Kalam cosmological argument. With the Big Bang theory, the same thing is inferred upon it that if the Big Bang is true, there was a necessary causation which means there was a necessary being. Forget about this being being God. Thats a whole different topic, and it would depend on your own epistemology.
You quoted Rundle. I dont know the quote you provided which I would like to know where from. Nevertheless, Rundle argues philosophically that questioning the question of the Big Bang and the pre Big Bang stage if there was ever one was a nothing is valid. BUT, what you must acknowledge is that the question is asked despite it being a logical impossibility. Even an absurdity. The argument is that even "if" the question is valid. Rundle is a fantastic philosopher and well respected so there is no question about his sophistry, but you would note that he immediately starts talking about God, theology, and the issues with both of them which means his epistemology is based on it. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not really go there unless you refer to someone who uses it to justify a God according to his personal theology. This distinction has to be made to understand and discuss this argument. Vis a vis, rather than refuting God, one must refute the Cosmological argument which is fundamentally going back to a necessary being which can only be inferred through other arguments, is God.
I hope you understand.
