(December 9, 2015 at 10:54 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(December 9, 2015 at 10:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.Im not posting the entire Kalam argument, but its easily refuted. It doesn't matter if it establishes a first cause, because they still would have to prove that god is that cause and you cant establish that god causes anything until you prove he exists first!!!! Which is why its a presuppostional argument, god must be assumed to exist first before he can be established as the cause.
Now you've lost me. If the universe has a cause, then the argument turns to what are plausible causes. An immaterial, timeless. personal cause of sufficient power to create the entirety of the universe. You can read the arguments and disagree with the conclusions by offering alternatives. What you can't do is say God was presupposed.