The Kalam Is Guilty of Whaaat?

Dr. Craig answers a question concerning an apparent circular dynamic of the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument.

QUESTION: Dr. Craig, In the book How to Prove There is a God, Dr. Mortimer Adler makes an interesting comment that relates to the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument. He says, “If you choose that the world began, you already assumed the existence of God. That begs the question. You would be assuming that God exists.” Page 11 of his book. If one assumes that temporality of the universe (as the second premise of the kalam cosmological argument does), is one committed to begging the question or circular reasoning? Dave in the United States.

DR. CRAIG: No, Dave, I don't think so at all. There's nothing about the premise (“the universe began to exist”) that presupposes the existence of God. On the contrary, I think it implies the existence of God when conjoined with the first premise that “whatever begins to exist has a cause,” but there are many people who believe that the universe began to exist who do not believe in God. I think they're mistaken, but it shows, I think, that the statement that “the universe began to exist” is itself religiously neutral and therefore non-question begging.