Evaluation of Kalam cosmological argument

This premise is in error: "2. The universe began to exist." How do you know this? It is an unsubstantiated premise and a weak link in the argument. 

The argument seems to be free of logical fallacies.  It's a good argument.

Whether one accepts the conclusion will depend on (1) whether one accepts the premises, (2) how one defines "cause" and "began", and (3) what one considers as the "universe".

Hi, Lars C!

Every prominent defender of the syllogism that I have read or heard concludes, by analysis of what the cause would have to be like, that the cause is God. Arguing about whether this analysis is part of the Kalam argument or a distinct supplement to it, isn’t important.

These are the important discussion questions when evaluating the argument. Is the Kalam argument good? Is the analysis of the cause good?

Thank you, Lars C.

From, Kaiden

No, but by rules of disjunction, it can be inferred.

If by "universe" we mean space, matter and energy has a beginning and a cause, then the the cause of the universe must be immaterial (not made of matter), not dependent upon space, or energy. It must also be capable of producing universes that develop sentient life, consciousness, and obey complex mathematical laws.  The question become is that effect best explained by an immaterial with a mind OR (the disjunction), a mindless immaterial cause?

Something that is immaterial, creates universes and life is very consistent with the expectations that monotheists have expected for millenia, and were developed by logicians and philosophers like St Thomas Aquinas for centuries.

But you're correct, with only this argument, the cause is unknown. This argument can only bring a person to believe the cause is immaterial, and did the things I listed above. It so happens it is entirely consistent with what a particular group of monotheistic theologians and philosophers predicted for centuries could and would be discovered by natural epistemology, which it is rightfully called "Natural Theology"

I believe it is logically sound, but it tells us nothing, and is of little value.

C , of course is often taken to mean God, but it could be an event pre-Big Bang.

Perhaps stating the obvious, but if the universe began to exist, the BB could be the cause.

Also, remember the flaw in the BB theory, that time, space and matter began at the BB, is not quite accurate. It actually means MEASURABLE time, space and matter did not exist, but only because we do not have the tools to measure what went before (and obviously something did, to cause the BB).

It is a valid argument. The soundness of the argument is debatable (hotly debated). If you are looking for support or refutations to this argument, I would suggest YouTube for some really good videos on that.

As mentioned by Bennett and others who know the logic, the argument is formally valid. However, the most common informal fallacy that is usually coined to the argument is the fallacy of equivocation, because it is argued that in premise 1 the concept "begin to exist" refers to 

x begins to exist from something previously existing

while in the second premise it refers to

The universe began to exist without something previously existing

However, fewer and fewer are sustaining this objection given the analysis of beginning to exist that has been offered in defense of the argument.

Regarding your disagreement that this is not an argument for the existence of God you are right, it is not, since all that is sought by the argument is for the atheist to accept that the universe has a transcendental cause, and if that is the case, then a second argument would be formulated along these lines:

1. The universe has a cause for its existence.

2 If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

3. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

As you can see, this second argument in combination with the Kalam leads to the conclusion you are looking for, that God is the creator of the universe.

Of course, since this is a logic forum I am only limiting myself to the fallacies part, so not mentioning anything about the truth of the premises.