Why do you not believe in God?

[Mystic]

No the conclusion is that the cause didn't begin to exist..

hehe, yes, that is the conclusion, but it is question begging because you are using it in your premise.

Everything that begins to exist must have a Cause.
Everything that doesn't begin to exist, doesn't have a Cause.

Can you see a distinction between the statements? I believe both of these are true.

If something didn't begin to exist, it would be eternal, not in need of a cause.

If something began to exist, it would be in need of a cause.

[The Grand Nudger]

Care to give some examples of things that began to exist, and then some examples of things that didn't?

[Whateverist]

Care to give some examples of things that began to exist, and then some examples of things that didn't?

How about dinosaurs and gods?

Oops .. I should clarify that gods are only examples of things that didn't begin to exist in the sense that they at least haven't yet begun to exist at all .. so far as any of us know. Are we expecting any?

[Mystic]

Care to give some examples of things that began to exist, and then some examples of things that didn't?

Well I believe everything began to exist but God.

But materialists can believe matter didn't begin to exist. In this case, matters existence is not in need of a cause.

A planet, a sun, a baby, a human, are all examples of things that began to exist. They are in need of a cause (or variety of causes).

[Skepsis]

Care to give some examples of things that began to exist, and then some examples of things that didn't?

Well said.
If you cannot give another example of something that didn't "begin to exist", then you are essentially relabeling God. This makes the new Kalam more or less the some bout of special pleading that the old Kalam was, as it too suffers from the "Then where did God come from?" objection.
Relabling or redefining God into some semblance of a logical argument doesn't make him any more extant.

---

I knew I read this somewhere, so I looked it up.

The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.

--- Iron Chariots Kalam Wiki entry on the circularity of such an argument.

[Simon Moon]

I can kick KCA around more if you want to in a different thread, I don't want to douchjack this thread.

I still like to point out the equivocation fallacy KCA commits with the phrase "begins to exist".

Either way, KCA is a very weak argument.

[Ace Otana]

Everything that begins to exist must have a Cause.
Everything that doesn't begin to exist, doesn't have a Cause.

Not necessarily. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence without a cause. Also there is no before the big bang because time didn't exist and so there's no time for a cause to exist in.
It's possible the universe simply popped into existence and without a cause.
Look up 'a universe from nothing' by Krauss look into Stephen Hawking who also goes into it.

[ktulu]

hehe, yes, that is the conclusion, but it is question begging because you are using it in your premise.

Everything that begins to exist must have a Cause.
Everything that doesn't begin to exist, doesn't have a Cause.

Can you see a distinction between the statements? I believe both of these are true.

If something didn't begin to exist, it would be eternal, not in need of a cause.

If something began to exist, it would be in need of a cause.

lol, I'm going to apologize to the OP at this point for douchejacking the thread, I figured this would happen.
Ok, let's see. where to begin. First of all, we were arguing about how sound an argument is logically, not your preference, or your perception. What you wrote is not a logical argument so I won't bother to refute it.

Here's a little tidbit of reply though. Causation is a temporal phenomena. You have matter in state A , then you have a cause, and then you have matter in state B. Since time is a property of the universe, what you are looking for is THE CAUSE, not A CAUSE (do you see the distinction?), meaning god, meaning an undefined entity.

Here's something else that is wrong with your ... argument? Every one thing that begins to exist has a cause. Meaning that everything within the universe has a cause. The universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things. See Russell's paradox regarding sets. Therefore the argument fails because you are making a categorical equivocation. Here's your argument now.
1. all Smardorfs that exist are purple
2. Marsrdorfs exist.
c. Marsrdorfs are purple.

[Mystic]

What you guys aren't realizing is that the premise that use to be disputed is "the universe began to exist". Atheists long before scientific evidence came up, would state the universe is eternal.

Now we have scientific evidence that the universe has a beginning. So this argument is becoming potent again. In fact, big bang theory didn't dismiss universe being eternal. However, right now, scientists are concluding that the universe must have had beginning or there wouldn't be planets, suns, etc.. it would be total darkness. That is if you say there is an infinite past.

Something needs to be eternal.

[The Grand Nudger]

-without a known cause-

No, Mystic, it isn't becoming potent again because it falls on it's face in entirely the same place for entirely the same reasons. It is perceived to be becoming potent again because people are selling it again, to folks like yourself.

Why does anything need to be eternal? Who needs this? What needs this?