Kalam Cosmological Nonsense

[Neo-Scholastic]

I see once again god is equated with an abstract concept by Chad.

Not entirely. Some abstract concepts refer to real things. Some do not. The only reason I am participating in this thread is to better understand where nominalism breaks down.

…his debate tactics are intellectually dishonest …

That’s not a very nice thing to say. I’m willing to forgive you for calling me a liar and an asshole so we can have a civil discussion. Besides why does it matter if I do or do not have a hidden agenda? It has no bearing on the issue at hand.

… all of this intellectual masturbation they go through with us is just a front, a show, and a sham to distract from the truly bad reason they continue to "have faith".

I saw this thread as an opportunity to play philosophy, so why do you disrespect the conversation you started.

…the house is a re-arrangement of pre-existing energy/matter. A carpenter cannot create a house from the non-existent.

I am making the distinction between various types of cause. The shape of the house is the formal cause. The carpenter’s work is the efficient cause. The materials from which the house is made is the material cause. Which types of cause do you consider invalid and why?

…"Calculus" is a mathematical description of the behavior of entities in Universe under certain conditions…Such descriptions are discoveries, not "creation" from non-existence.

Which of these two statements best restates your this: Calculus has ontological status as something real, a pre-existing something waiting to be discovered. Or calculus is a convenient fiction that approximates reality.

…"I define "Universe" (capital-U, no "the") as the total of everything that exists…as distinct from "the Cosmos" (everything that emerged from our Big Bang)…

Fair enough. Do you think sensations are part of Universe? Most likely we agree that visible wavelength exist? But do you think ‘red’ has ontological status? Is sensation included in your definition of Universe?

…There is…a…fallacy of composition,…it claims that since a part of the whole requires a cause, it also applies to the whole.

You have a point. It all hinges around what you define the whole.