(December 9, 2015 at 11:56 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:(December 9, 2015 at 11:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
Wow man, you really can't be this dense? You haven't proven god exists how could you possibly say that its a plausible explanation, I could take your argument and plug in magic alligator or universe creating turtle as the first cause, they both have the power to create the universe why are they less probable than the magic god that you made up.
You're confused about the what the Kalam argument is. The argument concludes a cause. The next step is, based on all the back and forth discussed in the premises, describe what attributes must this cause have. Important: nothing new was introduced. A description of the cause is logically developed from the premises.
If your magic alligator is immaterial, timeless, personal cause of sufficient power to create the entirety of the universe, then you can use the argument. Most people just use the word God.