The Kalam Cosmological Argument

[Thumpalumpacus]

Please try to read what I say, and not accuse me of things I have never said and would not say. 

"X said this" is not equivalent to "therefore you must believe it." 

If we want to understand first cause arguments, we have to read what they actually say.

Well, many of us have, myself included.

You here are arguing they may have some point. I never wrote that you argued they must be believed (a fallacy itself, a strawman), but I sure as hell want to know why you think that because Aristotle said something, it should be accorded some status despite its logical fallacy embedded.

So, to the point, do you not think the fallacies embedded in those arguments -- be they from Ari, or Augie, or whomever -- don't you think the simple fallacies themselves kill the argument no matter whose name is on the paper? I know what Aristotle and Augustine wrote. I think it's plain that both have sloppy thinking in there (Aristotle with the Composition fallacy, Augustine with both that and special pleading).

Take their names off, and explain to us how their reasoning is tight and not sloppy.