(December 10, 2015 at 10:23 am)teveII Wrote:(December 9, 2015 at 11:56 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 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.
The cosmological argument itself can also be used to support the eternal existence of a reality existentially independent of God that has properties or capacities to yield universes like this one. God is not the best explanation because it's not the most parsimonious, you're adding an unnecessary entity in this case. Reality itself is sufficient enough as the explanation.
