A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

Not knowing what was before T=0 in no way avoids the causal chain. Even before the current laws of nature existed, the concept of cause and effect still applies.

Whoa, not to be picky, but could I have some evidence with that assertion?

These are not scientific concepts that can be voided with a "we don't know". These are metaphysical concepts that would transcend T=0.

Do you actually think that just demanding that certain things are metaphysical means we're bound to accept that too? I know it's a convenient little term that lets you accomplish whatever you need to at any given moment while meaning nothing at all, but we'll need something a little more firm than "I said it's metaphysical, therefore it's still a problem for you but not for me!" to proceed with this.

You are pointing out that if the term "begins to exist" is used, God is excluded. Since the Kalam has nothing to do with God, I am confused how that invalidate that specific argument with special pleading.

Come on, man. Let's not be dishonest here. The Kalam argument has nothing to do with god? That must be why it's a slightly edited version of the cosmological argument for the existence of god, then. You know, the one most earliest proposed by islamic and christian philosophers to prove the existence of their specific gods.

Gee, I don't know why I ever thought that a cosmological argument for the existence of god, referred to god.

So, you do not believe that in every possible universe, there are not a set of necessary truths (logic, numbers, etc.)?

I misspoke. What I meant was the arguments for and against the premises do not include a discussion of God.