Nobody is being forced to read or participate. Those who do can provide their own arguments in the expectation that their claims will be questioned.
Religious claims are problematic because they are faith based. Faith based beliefs, by definition, cannot be tested objectively.
The atheist belief that the universe was created from nothing(ex nihilo) is a faith based claim.
That's not the atheist claim. That's your claim on behalf of atheists.
bullshit
You made a false claim. Saying 'bullshit' doesn't prove your claim. You presume to speak on behalf of atheists.
It says you spoke bullshit when you made your claim.
I spoke to my claim when I responded to willto. I used reason. You just spoke.
You make baseless claims, then accuse your opponent of bullshit, all the while being unaware of the irony of your tactics.
How is the Kalam Cosmological argument wrong?
Plenty of reasons, basically;
What it should say but doesn't; 1. Everything that begins to exist has both an efficient and material cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has both an efficient and material cause of its existence.
"So there you have it, the evidence in support of the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Two lines of reasoning that support the idea of the universe having both a material and efficient cause, and a complete non sequitur that falsely equates something with nothing and asks us to cherry pick which aspects of causality we consider to be metaphysical in nature. Of course the argument does have a second premise...''
