His argument for the Kalam contingency is old school Thomas Aquinas stuff, great for determining the number of angels that can dance on a pin, but it begins to suffer when you get into the realm of applying it to the real world.
Argument from contingency is popular, because, as Gottfried Liebnetz suggested, you can explain away anything in a puff of logic by basing it on a shaky premise.
The problem, of course, is that it dismisses the theory of infinite regression of cause. Just because you assume that every cause must have an effect doesn't mean that, when dealing with the question of the beginning of the universe, that every effect must have a cause. We're still learning new things every day, it seems a bit early to dismiss everything because, mathematically, a bumblebee cannot possibly fly.
Philosophy is composed of questions that cannot be answered, and religion is answers that cannot be questioned.
