Does the Kalam Cosmological argument negate God's existence.Posted by: famousdebater
The argument goes in the following syllogism: (1) Everything that began to exist had a cause (2) The universe began to exist (3) The universe had a cause (4) If the universe had a cause, that cause is God (5) Therefore, God exists
The logic seems pretty airtight to me.
When explained in more detail, it is flawless. My more detailed version can be accessed by viewing one of my debates.
Just watch this and you will get the whole idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
The KCA is very brief and is massively flawed. Even the most basic rebuttal (referencing to what caused God) works in refuting it. If everything that begins to exist has a cause then what about God? When theists are asked this question after bringing up the argument 9/10 times the answer either avoids the question or they say some BS that makes no sense. Sometimes you get more intelligent people who can argue it and get around fallacies like this but the argument itself does not negate atheism.
The only place where effects are known to have causes, is within the confines of the universe, because that is a natural law. Therefore it is safer to assume that the rules of the universe don't apply to the creation of the universe, since that must have happened outside the universe. But maybe it didn't because then the law of time wouldn't apply either. Do you see how the laws of logic fall apart concerning the beginning of the universe? This is why logical arguments cannot be made concerning the beginning of the universe. Furthermore, even if the universe requires a cause that we can even wrap out brains around, it doesn't logically equate to an omnipotent, omnipresent and all-knowing God/gods.
It only affirms theism.