I want to start by saying that this is the Christian organization that I have the most respect for of all. Dr.Craig is undoubtedly a genius and I have learned so many things from him and I just love watching all his debates and the defenders series. I'm 30 years old and have been an atheist my whole life, without even getting close to believing in god, or even any non-material object, in my entire life. Seeing the materials here have actually shaken me and I no longer believe that it is unreasonable to believe in god, rather it seems to me that, based on evidence, a strong case for Christianity can be made (and has been made by Dr.Craig). I have ordered the Kalam cosmological argument book along with other books and I've also begun to read the bible again since it now has a whole new level of interest to me. My question is this. In several of the arguments for God's existence, god is identified as the "cause" or "explanation" of the universe. In Leibniz's argument as well as the Kalam cosmological argument. I feel the arguments are actually good, they seem more plausible to be true than false to me, but I still have one problem with the truth that people get out of them, and that is the title of this question. Once Dr.Craig has identified that the universe has a cause, or that the explanation of the universe is god, he then jumps to the conclusion that this cause has to be Timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc. I do not see why. Couldn't we simply say that the big bang is the cause of the universe, and we call the big bang god, and that is all there is? In Leibniz's argument, god is the explanation of the universe, but couldn't this "god" we identified simply be the material cause of the universe? I'm guessing that I'm missing something here and I would appreciate any explanation. As counter argument to the cause of the universe being e.g. immaterial, take myself. I can make a chair, and be the cause of the chair, but still, I"m not immaterial. I can write a computer program, which then gets instantiated in a computer, consisting of 1s and 0s, that doesn't imply that I come from a world outside of 1s and 0s. People can make atomic bombs, that explode and is the cause of incredibly powerful events, that doesn't show that the person that made them is some how immaterial. I can't see the reason to jump from "god exists" to identifying any of the attributes of god. Couldn't what we call "God" in the arguments, simply be the big bang, or any other explanation of the universe that we have yet to discover? Concise final statement of the question:. Why would this "God" or "Cause", that we argued for in e.g. the Kalam Cosmological argument have to be outside the universe and be timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc?