Tentatively Christian; looking for a reasonable discussion

[Delicate]

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.

Oh, I see: so basically you think that adding an argument from tradition fallacy to your argument from definition will make it less fallacious.

No, I don't care who came up with the definition: what matters here is that fiat definition is not justification for existence. You can't just say that god is uncreated by definition, and therefore that's okay. You can wrap yourself in definitions as much as you like, but not a one of them will be adequate defense against the simple fact that you've offered no justification for that at all.

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.

You kinda do, if your new premises are going to suggest the existence of an entire new category of existence (things that do not begin to exist). You also kinda do, if you want to justify the tweak to your premises, rather than have it be, indeed, a dodge to avoid the obvious flaw in your first argument. See, when I formulate an argument and the first premise is shown to be obviously false, I don't look for ways to tweak the argument to get around that, because I'm not bound to this position where the argument just has to be true no matter what. I just make a new argument that's more accurate than the one that's obviously false.

With Kalam, you have an initial argument that isn't based on evidence, and is nothing but invention, and you have a refinement of the argument, which also isn't based on evidence and is nothing but invention... well, where's the reason I should take that seriously? Where, in that pile of unjustified nothings created by theologians with a prior commitment to an ideology, am I supposed to find a signifier of objective reality?

Why should I even consider stuff that people have just made up?

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.

Actually, I don't consider this point an argument against Kalam. The argument against Kalam is that none of the premise are supported by anything even approaching evidence; my point about its development is just a demonstration of how theistic arguments are built and altered to match a presupposition, rather than as observations of reality.

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?

You do understand that there are other, older cosmological arguments than Kalam, right? And that Kalam is a modulation of those older arguments?

And that any cosmological argument without the "begins to exist" language is easily debunked by asking who created god?

An argument from tradition says "X is traditional, therefore x is true."

I'm saying "The definition of God as non-contingent existed long before the arguments. Therefore the definition of God was not invented to support these arguments."

How in the world does the argument from tradition fallacy come into play here? I'm not saying the definition of God is true. I don't think it even matters. You could replace God is any other word you prefer.