Trav,

It's amazing that you still find it in yourself to defend the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Were the fallacy of equivocation, the fallacy of composition, special pleading, begging the question and false dichotomy not enough for you?

Shadow, you have misrepresented his argument. No one argues that "it must be God", rather each attribute is justified individually- timeless, personal, etc.

But your main issue is your misunderstanding of God of the Gaps. Craig argues based on what we know from science (or what the scientific evidence suggests)- that the universe began to exist. He does not argue on the basis of what we do not know, by inserting God into any gap.

"The universe exists, therefore God exists"

Riiight...

Trav,

Speaking of equivocation fallacy, your response to Shadow Minister contained one with your use of the term “beginning”.

While the science suggests the universe had a beginning, we don’t know what came before. There could have been nothing, there could have been something or it may not even make sense to ask. Craig uses this unknown to plonk his God into and thus his argument becomes a God of the Gaps fallacy.

Your claim that Craig argues based on “what the scientific evidence suggests” is just something you’ve made up to award his argument some undue prestige.

I’m not sure why you feel it’s so important to show his cosmological argument to not be a God of the Gaps one though. The argument contains more fallacies than you can poke a stick at, but so long as it’s not the God of the Gaps fallacy, I guess that’s alright, eh?

Where there is effect, there is cause. Where we are unable to specify or to understand the cause, or even perhaps to fully understand the effect, then there is room to conjecture, to hypothesise. Thus does science and understanding proceed and progress.

Some mysteries may never be fully unravelled, though the investigation is destined to continue.

"God" will in all probability have to remain an idea or an ideal, as the intrinsic and extrinsic nature of "God" must always remain elusive, and will therefore inevitably elude specification within the limits of human comprehension.

To say some things just are, and are inexplicable, will always appear trite, "convenient" and evasive, and so will always remain subject to question. Such is the human condition and curiosity, and perhaps the human arrogance, imperfection and frailty.

Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too AJ! Why not list another few fallacies...I'm sure Craig commits those ones too.