(January 26, 2015 at 1:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote: There's a subtlety to the finite universe positions that theists often miss, even in the theorems that creationists use as evidence for their position, which is why cosmologists don't think the universe was past infinite: at a certain point in those models our normative understanding of causation breaks down. Essentially, there's a point on the graph past which we're unable to accurately predict what goes on, and that is the point at which our linear understanding of time stops being a thing. This is why, even if you read the work of cosmologists who advocate for a past-finite universe, you'll see at least one passage detailing this, along with an admission of ignorance regarding what goes on beyond that point. It's not the "universe must have a cause," case that you think it is.
"Begins to exist" is the special pleading: you're asserting one category for everything else, and a special category exempt from the rules for your god, and providing no evidence for the existence of the latter category. In that way, it's also kind of begging the question.
Not knowing what was before T=0 in no way avoids the causal chain. Even before the current laws of nature existed, the concept of cause and effect still applies. These are not scientific concepts that can be voided with a "we don't know". These are metaphysical concepts that would transcend T=0.
You are pointing out that if the term "begins to exist" is used, God is excluded. Since the Kalam has nothing to do with God, I am confused how that invalidate that specific argument with special pleading.