Vladdo the logically challenged,
I asked for Hillsides demolition of the Kalam Cosmological argument...That the universe has a cause. He hasn't done it and the premise everything that has a beginning has a cause has not been demolished.
The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning. There’s no way to establish whether or not that’s the case (and current scientific consensus is that the question is meaningless in any case for the same reason that “what’s south of the South Pole?” is meaningless), therefore any argument that rests on it fails
ipso facto.
The KCA fails for other reasons too, but its failure to demonstrate its premise is all that’s necessary to demolish it.
The situation is that Hillside has said the universe began, railed back on that, suggested I was wrong in talking about origins yet suggested I consult Hawking on the origin of the universe and all the time we know we cannot finally demolish the premises or the conclusions of the Kalam cosmological argument since we don't know whether the universe had a beginning.
No Hillside didn’t. Discussions about possible “origins” don’t necessarily entail the assertion that there was a “beginning”. Stop lying
Unless you are arguing that the universe could not have had a beginning because the KCA is begging the question, of course.
More idiocy. The KCA itself begs the question, not the other way around. It's a stupid argument, easily demolished.
