Much of Hitchen's argument is not original at all, and can hardly be called 'his own'. It is a regurgitation of Bertrand Russell in many respects. Yet you seem to have no problem discussing Hitchens. Moreover, Craig's argument, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument isn't exactly his 'own' either. And yet you refuse to discuss the latter. Interesting.
Hitchen's would chew you up and spit you out in about 5 mins in a face to face.. don't go on here like you know know all about Hitchens.
I've little interest i cosmological arguments, as they change all the time. Cosmological arguments are about the material existence...matter, and the forces that shape matter. So they are limited to that which is matter, and can shape and give direction to matter...i.e. materialism. The cosmologists disagree, so why should I enter the fray? I'll stick to something that I can reason with that would be true independently of any particular cosmological argument.
I'm afraid that this is impossible. You are part of the cosmos as is everything else we know and that science can shed light on. There is nothing that you can 'reason with' that is independent of the cosmos, and by extension, independent of the kalaam cosmological argument, regardless of whether the latter is valid or not.
You present a few quotes, normally from religious websites (which by all means bring into question the context and possibility for a misquote), and pretend like scientists are saying there is a creator? For every scientist you present that says there is a creator, I can find 10 who say the opposite. Your argument is totally mute. Secondly, why do you cling to Nobel prize winners as being more credible than anyone else? Obama won the Nobel peace prize. That right there goes to show you the credibility of the Nobel assocation. You likely won't respond to this post, as you seem to avoid the tough questions, but I felt the need to say this anyways.
So you think it is impossible? So your position is nothing exists outside of the cosmos? Okay, that's your position. The cosmos can be defined, right? Please go ahead and provide your working definition.
If you are talking about a subject that is outside the common knowledge you have to point to experts in their subject and compare their conclusions. For instance if an argument is that there is no way the universe had a enough time to form an certain organism by chance... and I said that... you would ask me to back up the statement. I would have no credibility. but a published phd holding microbiologist said they understood the exact mechanism it would take and stated it would be 1 in 10 to the 5000 milllion... you would say... according to that expert there is no way that organism formed by chance. If you wanted to dispute an experts point, you would have to bring in another credible expert.... yet clowns on ET think it is a valid dispute to say no way - that guy is wrong, its just an opinion and he is just saying that because it was on a religious website. You do realize that sometimes experts draw conclusions from the data... right? an expert opinion in his area of expertise is not the same as a clown's opinion right? For instance if I say joe blow is the hardest throwing pitcher in the minor leagues... that opinion is far different that if the head scout for the dodgers says it, right? if the head scout of the dodgers says it you would take it under consideration right?