You hit upon the major fallacy that destroys the modus ponens of Kalam's (or any variant) Cosmological argument.
There is a big fat fallacy of equivocation in it. It equivocates the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.
The first definition in P1 refers to creation ex-material, or in other words, rearrangement of existing matter/energy.
The second definition in P2 refers to creation ex-nihilo, or creation out of nothing.
There is also an equally bad fallacy of composition, in that it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.
I still can't believe that so many theists think that the CA is such a strong argument.
There is a big fat fallacy of equivocation in it. It equivocates the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.
The first definition in P1 refers to creation ex-material, or in other words, rearrangement of existing matter/energy.
The second definition in P2 refers to creation ex-nihilo, or creation out of nothing.
There is also an equally bad fallacy of composition, in that it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.
I still can't believe that so many theists think that the CA is such a strong argument.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
