In Defense of the Kalam

[Avodaiah]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I've done my research on this, and as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, as far as I have seen, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why.
Avodaiah

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'The universe began to exist.'

Problematic and unestablished.

'Everything that begins to exist has a cause.'

A large and vocal body of particle physicists disagree with this.

'Therefore the universe had a cause.'

Since the two premises are on shaky foundations, there is no compelling reason to accept the conclusion.

That being said, is it possible that the universe does have a cause, but Craig's parameters regarding the nature of that cause are pretty ad hoc. Further, whether the universe is cause ort uncaused, neither is going to be determined by KCA.

Boru

[ShaMan]

"God is great. The end."

Then why proclaim a defense?

[Jackalope]

Boru nailed it.

You can't polish a turd, no matter how hard you try.

[Angrboda]

The type of "began to exist" in the second premise is different from the type of "began to exist" which applies to the universe in premise one. Since the key term is equivocated, the conclusion doesn't follow.

[Simon Moon]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I've done my research on this, and as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, as far as I have seen, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why.
Avodaiah

Then you haven't done enough research.

The argument contains at least 3 fallacies.

1. The fallacy of equivocation.

The argument equivocates on the meaning of 'begins to exist'.

In the first premise, 'begins to exist' is being used to mean, existence out of nothing.

This is existence ex nihilo'.

In the second premise, 'begins to exist' is being used to mean that things we observe in the universe that begin to exist are a rearrangement of existing matter and energy. Trees, tables, animals, iPhones begin to exist by rearranging existing matter and energy.

In other words, existence 'ex materia'.

The argument is using 2 different meanings for the same term.

2. Fallacy of composition.

Just because something is true of part of a system or part of a whole, does not mean it is true for the entire system.

The argument claims that, because cause and effect are true for all the things we observe withing the universe, they also must be true for the entire universe. This is false.

Example: Because large objects are made of atoms, large objects have the properties of atoms.

I'm sure you can see why the previous example is flawed, for the same reason the Cosmological argument is flawed.

3. Circularity.

(This failure could also be considered, 'affirming the consequent', because it smuggles the conclusion into the premises.)

Dan Barker states it well,

"The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.”

It also contains the fallacy of special pleading. But that one is too obvious to mention.


So, no, the argument is logically invalid. The modus ponens of your argument fails on multiple levels.

[The Valkyrie]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

I've done my research on this, and as far as I can tell, it's a true argument.
Yes, people have tried to refute it a thousand times, but none of these attempts, as far as I have seen, have been successful. So anyone who thinks this argument is false, please tell me why.
Avodaiah

Your god exists (according to you)
Everything that exists has to have a cause (according to you)
Therefore a more powerful entity created your god (according to this logic).

[Cinjin]

The universe began to exist.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Therefore the universe had a cause.

What a great argument you got there.


Shit happens.
Shit happened because you did stuff.
Shit comes from a wizard.

[Esquilax]

Kalam fails because it's simplistic, unsupported, fallacious and functions on nothing more than bare assertions. Given how many of those traits it shares with the religion it was made to defend, it's not really surprising that a member of that religion would find it compelling.

After all, they already want it to be true, and don't care enough to investigate it.

[Marsellus Wallace]

I thought I will see an argument here . You are simply dropping your simple narrow minded thoughts to us and claiming that they are right .