Yeah, I don't believe Kalam has any formal logical fallacies. It might possibly equivocate on "begins to exist", but it definitely doesn't affirm the consequent. As Rasetsu says, all it really says is:
All members of Set X possess Y;
A is a member of Sex X;
Therefore A posseses Y.
Structurally, it's [Kalam] no different than:
All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man;
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
All members of Set X possess Y;
A is a member of Sex X;
Therefore A posseses Y.
Structurally, it's [Kalam] no different than:
All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man;
Therefore Socrates is mortal.
"The reason things will never get better is because people keep electing these rich cocksuckers who don't give a shit about you."
-George Carlin
-George Carlin
