The problems with Kalam CA go deeper than just whether the premises are true or not.
Kalam CA is guilty of several fallacies that invalidate it.
The first is the fallacy of equivocation. It equivocates on the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.
In P1, the phrase 'begins to exist' refer to objects within the universe that are a rearrangement of existing energy and matter. Trees, people, tables, etc begin to exist under this definition. This is creation ex materia.
In P2, the phrase 'begins to exist' refers to creation out of nothing. In other words, the deity created all matter and energy out of nothing. This is creation ex nihilo.
If Kalam is rewritten using the different definitions, the fallacy becomes obvious. (to borrow from IronChariots,org)
1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
In other words:
1. Every X has a cause.
2. The universe Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.
Kalam also contains the fallacy of composition.
P1 refers to 'everything' that we have ever observed, which is the set of every 'thing' withing the universe. P2 refers to the universe itself, which is not part of the set of every 'thing' as defined in P1. A set can't be a member of itself.
Just because the parts have certain properties, does not mean the whole has the same properties.
In other words, Kalam CA is saying something as idiotic as, "Atoms are not visible to the naked eye. Humans are made up of atoms. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye
Kalam CA is guilty of several fallacies that invalidate it.
The first is the fallacy of equivocation. It equivocates on the meaning of the phrase 'begins to exist'.
In P1, the phrase 'begins to exist' refer to objects within the universe that are a rearrangement of existing energy and matter. Trees, people, tables, etc begin to exist under this definition. This is creation ex materia.
In P2, the phrase 'begins to exist' refers to creation out of nothing. In other words, the deity created all matter and energy out of nothing. This is creation ex nihilo.
If Kalam is rewritten using the different definitions, the fallacy becomes obvious. (to borrow from IronChariots,org)
1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
In other words:
1. Every X has a cause.
2. The universe Y.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.
Kalam also contains the fallacy of composition.
P1 refers to 'everything' that we have ever observed, which is the set of every 'thing' withing the universe. P2 refers to the universe itself, which is not part of the set of every 'thing' as defined in P1. A set can't be a member of itself.
Just because the parts have certain properties, does not mean the whole has the same properties.
In other words, Kalam CA is saying something as idiotic as, "Atoms are not visible to the naked eye. Humans are made up of atoms. Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye
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.
