Kalam Cosmological Nonsense

[median]

So the Kalam Argument (KCA for short) states the following:

P1 - Whatever begins to exist must have a cause
P2 - The universe began to exist
C - Therefore, the universe has a cause

I have at least two points on this before getting to the big point of this OP.

1. Even if granted, this argument does not, in any way, get theists to a divine disembodied, all powerful, mind. "The cause" can be, and I say is, something for which we know NOT what. So we should admit ignorance, and withhold judgment, until further data comes in.

2. Even if granted, the argument does not say "must have a cause ex-nihilo". And current cosmology does not say, and could not say, our current local universe derived from ex-nihilo (non-existence). There is no way to even comprehend what "non-existence" even is. Again, at best we could say that our current local universe (which we are now partly experiencing) started a certain number of years ago and we know not exactly from what or how. Again, we should admit ignorance and withhold judgment - NOT jump to the bald assertion "God did it", which has been so common amongst religious folks throughout history when they have had gaps in their knowledge (Zeus!).

TURNING THE TABLES:

I have put together this argument as a response to the KCA. Comment if you like.

P1 - Whatever did not begin to exist (ex nihilo), does not need a cause
P2 - The global universe did not begin to exist (ex nihilo)
C - Therefore, the global universe does not need a cause

Now, I could anticipate a possible response to P2. Someone might ask how I know the global universe did not begin to exist (ex nihilo). My response is that none of our experience demonstrates anything pointing to anything coming into being ex nihilo. Thus there is no reason to think our current local universe came into being "from nothing", just like there is no reason to think our local universe came into being from a disembodied mind. It just might be the case that we cannot get the answer we want - perhaps due to the limits of our faculties etc. - or that we simply have not found the correct way of thinking about it yet. Again, at best we should be left with skepticism (not rigid belief or conclusion). Another objection might be that "actual infinities" are not possible. Therefore, my conclusion doesn't work. My response here is that this is an absurd response. How does one know that their view of "actual infinities" is the correct one - especially when much of science has demonstrated that our first intuitions are often wrong about subjects of this kind? Is God infinite? If so, then by this line of reasoning, it cannot exist. I maintain that the jury is still out as to "actual infinities", and again we should admit ignorance and withhold judgment.


FOR FUN:

Here is another argument I found online which displays how absurd KCA is. Comment if you like.

P1 - Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist, to begin existing
P2 - Anything which begins existing was not caused to do so by something which exists
P3 - The universe began to exist
P4 - Given 2&3, The universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists
P5 - God caused the universe to exist
C - Given 4&5, God does not exist