What would you call my new beliefs?

[SteveII]

Okay, but the formal argument (say the KCA) does not just assert God. It reasons (through inference) what characteristics are needed to bring the universe into existence given the scientific evidence and the metaphysical evidence we have at hand. It concludes that God, a person already defined elsewhere, is the best explanation that fit the criteria.

You  insist on missing the point. God is not 'already defined elsewhere',  as you yourself said in an earlier post. The whole Kalam cosmological argument is an attempt to prove what is already assumed, it is manifestly NOT an attempt to find out about the beginning of the universe. If cosmology were equated to a murder investigation, the KCA would be analogous to detectives trying, not to prove who committed the crime, but that John did it.

Boru

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree that God has been defined for thousands of years before the Kalam came around. The foremost living authority on the Kalam addresses your other concerns:

Objection #2: The kalam cosmological argument is question-begging. For the truth of the first premise presupposes the truth of the conclusion. Therefore the argument is an example of reasoning in a circle.

Response to #2: All the objector has done is describe the nature of a deductive argument. In a deductive argument, the conclusion is implicit in the premises, waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference. A classic illustration of a deductive argument is:

1. All men are mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.

3. Therefore, Socrates is moral.

This argument has the same logical form as the kalam cosmological argument.[5] In fact, this form of the argument even has a name. It is called modus ponens. Symbolically, it looks like this:



This is one of the most basic and important logically valid argument forms. Incredibly, I have actually seen claims by Internet critics that this argument about Socrates being mortal is also question-begging!

This raises the question of what it means for an argument to be question-begging. Technically, arguments don't beg the question; people do. One is guilty of begging the question if one's only reason for believing in a premise is that one already believes in the conclusion. For example, suppose you were to present the following argument for the existence of God:

1. Either God exists or the moon is made of green cheese.

2. The moon is not made of green cheese.

3. Therefore, God exists.

This is a sound argument for God's existence: its premises are both true, and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic (specifically, disjunctive syllogism). Nevertheless, the argument is not any good because your only reason for believing the first premise to be true is that you already believe that God exists (a disjunction like premise (1) is true if one of the disjuncts is true). But the belief that God exists is the conclusion of the argument! Therefore, in putting forward this argument you are reasoning in a circle or begging the question. The only reason you believe (1) is because you already believe (3).

Now neither the argument for Socrates' mortality nor the kalam argument is like this. In both cases reasons are given for believing the first premise which are quite independent of the argument's conclusion. Biological and medical evidence may be marshaled on behalf of the premise that all men are mortal, and I have presented arguments (which I'll review shortly) for the truth of the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, I have not begging the question. The objector has made an elementary mistake of confusing a deductive argument with a question-begging argument.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z4a61IXvlM