(December 9, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(December 9, 2015 at 10:08 pm)SteveII Wrote: Thank you for a reasonable discussion.
Putting God in the pool of explanatory options is not presupposing anything. You are free to debate the premises all you want. If you want to see them properly formatted and discussed with quotes from Dawkins etc., you can see several of them here .
Yes it is because you haven't established that god exists yet, that is what your premises are supposed to prove. Kalam doesn't prove god it builds an argument around the assumption that god already exists and assumes his capabilities. You can not make an argument for god being a cause for anything until you establish that he actually exists.
Your missing the 20 paragraphs of argumentation that comes AFTER you establish that the universe had a cause. God is not just stated. Each factor is examined as to what could be the cause and not create an infinite regression. You can debate the conclusions all you want--you can't claim that the conclusion is simply "therefore God". The other arguments are similarly structured.