In Defense of the Kalam

[Esquilax]

There's a couple of greater problems with Kalam, that invalidate it before it even gets out of the gate.

To begin with, the end result of Kalam Klassic, as the OP has given it, doesn't get us to "Christian God," so her christianity is clearly the result of something other than Kalam; it's not what convinced her. Using Kalam, all you get to is "Cause For Universe," and that can be anything. There's no sense in using Kalam to prove god exists because... it doesn't.

In answer to that we'll usually get the Kalam Khristian Kedition, where the arguer will continue: "We know this cause needs to be a being, because it has to blah blah blah," all leading us up to a god without ever justifying why these traits need to be a part of the cause. In essence, Khristian Kalam goes thusly:

1. Everything needs a cause.
2. Therefore the universe needs a cause, because without that these rules would be invalidated.
3. Here's a thing that breaks these rules in order to create the universe so those rules can't be broken.
4. Therefore, 1 and 2 are preserved.

Anyone using Kalam is setting up premises to get to a conclusion that just demonstrates that they believe the opposite of the premises. It's just bizarre.