Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Delicate]

Was it really a lazy workaround? Do you know that? How do you know, through supernatural revelation? Aren't you just assuming bad faith and poisoning the discussion to start off with? Can you imagine being in a discussion with someone who believed differently, and suddenly they started making up shit and throwing accusations at you?

So, Kalam is a variant of the original cosmological argument, which does not feature the "begins to exist" language. The one came first, then the other was refined from it, but the key thing to keep in mind is this: at no point was any research done, no justifications given for the change, other than that the original cosmological argument had such a big, gaping hole in it.

Kalam itself is an old argument- we find its earliest uses in the ninth century- and I fully grant that it comes based on Aristotelian philosophy, particularly the idea of a prime mover, but like the prime mover concept it has no evidence behind it; it is, in fact, an unjustified assertion. You can go off on me with a bunch of random assumptions about how I know, and that I'm really just starting off in bad faith, but I've actually researched the history of this argument; when I say it went from the one form to the other, with no additional evidence or justification, I really do mean that, and I really do know what I'm talking about.

Once we go this route, we can't discuss the ideas themselves, because we're too busy smearing the people.

And that's too bad because all we end up with is shit on our hands.

Can we assume good faith on both sides of the issue, unless you know something is dishonest for a fact, and can prove it?

I didn't say it as dishonest, I said it was lazy. And it is, in that it's guilty of the same sort of poor argumentation that Kalam itself is guilty of, and you too, in fact, when you define god as uncreated because that's how you want to define him. The point is that you can't define your way to a good argument; the "begins to exist" language has no better justification than the original cosmological premise did.

Okay let's get one thing clear here: I didn't come up with the definition of God. The definition of God as a necessary and uncreated being has existed for thousands of years, perhaps tens of thousands if not more. This idea of God wasn't concocted to make a good argument, it was what theists actually believe, independent of any arguments or definition-wars. So don't bullshit me about this being how I want to define God. What you're saying here- that this is how I want to define God- is verifiably nonsense.

Now let's get to cosmological arguments. Arguments are tweaked all the time, purely on the basis of what premises are more or less plausible. You don't need evidence or justification to adjust your premises. All you need to do is make sure the premise is true, or plausibly true (because you can't be certain about some things) and the premise supports the argument. I imagine your objection is sort of a "gotcha" objection, but that's not quite how it works.

The "begins to exist" thing is a feature of the original Kalam by Al Ghazali, made around 1000 AD. If you're referring to an older cosmological argument that has this gaping hole, I'd love to hear which one it is specifically. Aquinas'? Aristotle's? What's the wording under consideration?

As far as I can tell, there are some arguments, like the Leibnizian cosmological argument, that don't have "begins to exist." The LCA says something like

(1) Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence...

Which has no "begins to exist", and is framed in terms of explanations, not causes. This kind of premise says everything, whether it begins or not, has an explanation of its existence. So when you ask "Well what's the explanation for God?" The LCA points to the non-contingency of God (ie God is a necessary being, so if God exists, God exists necessarily, ie in all possible worlds).

But I imagine you were referring to a different original cosmological argument in particular.