Is still continually brought up.....despite being flimsy at best.
Here is a short version of Kalam argument commonly brought up by William Craig:

Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe must have a cause (presumably eternal god).

Of course, both premises are extremely naive.

First premise asserts that everything that began to exist has a cause....What began to exist, exactly? Can someone demonstrate? One can't just assert that properties which are found within our universe (like causation) necessarily apply to the universe itself. A 'beginning' of existence of a car (which is merely re-assembled energy/matter) is very different from supposed beginning of existence of ALL matter and energy. I'll forget for a second that first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed (matter is a form of energy).
To add to that, big bang theory does not claim that universe popped out of nothing, but rather that it went from super-hot condensed state (singularity) to a cooled, expanded state we live in today. And it is still expanding.
Logic and physical laws point to singularity being just another state of existence of energy, but scientific community is still undecided on that one.

So, here we are. Any thoughts?