(August 1, 2024 at 2:48 pm)Disagreeable Wrote: Quoting from Wikipedia: 'The most prominent form of the Kalam cosmological argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, is expressed as the following syllogism:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.'
I find this argument laughable because it's supposed to be an argument for God but the conclusion is just that the universe has a cause.
It's an argument with more fallacies than premises, which is a good trick. You have a fallacy of composition, P1 and P2 can't be linked to get the desired conclusion without a non sequitur, and both P1 and P2 are unsupported. It's about what you'd expect if you were reading cosmology written by a theologist a thousand years ago. And after all that they still can't get it to "god is the cause" without further fallacies.