Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Mudhammam]

Finally, Kalam is particularly galling if you know the history of the argument. It's actually the second iteration of a more general cosmological argument that used to run: "Everything has a cause, the universe is a thing, therefore the universe has a cause." Perhaps you can see the obvious flaw in that rendition of the argument? "What caused god, then?"

When it became clear that the original cosmological argument was a non-starter, Kalam was invented. The "begins to exist" language was added to the first premise, and this is particularly infuriating because it was done so purely to keep the cosmological argument valid. No evidence had been found, no research conducted, no philosophical thought offered; the argument was wrong, and so based on absolutely nothing, it was changed so that it was not-wrong. It's so clear, just looking at the history, that the priorities of the people formulating this argument weren't to come to a correct conclusion, but to come to the god conclusion by any means necessary. That's not exactly a way to come to truth, that's a presupposition.

Where in history are you placing its origin? I see "Kalam" written all over Plato's argument for "soul" in Laws Book X:

---

Athenian (Ath). I mean this: when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle?

Clinias (Cle). Very true, and I quite agree.

Ath. Or, to put the question in another way, making answer to ourselves:-If, as most of these philosophers have the audacity to affirm, all things were at rest in one mass, which of the above-mentioned principles of motion would first spring up among them?

Cle. Clearly the self-moving; for there could be no change in them arising out of any external cause; the change must first take place in themselves.

Ath. Then we must say that self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second.

Cle. Quite true.

Ath. At this stage of the argument let us put a question.

Cle. What question?

Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it?

Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life?

Ath. I do.

Cle. Certainly we should.

Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life?

.......(skipping ahead a few lines)......

Ath. And what is the definition of that which is named "soul"? Can we conceive of any other than that which has been already given-the motion which can move itself?

Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul?

Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things?

Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things.

---