Quote from Shrimpanzee
The KCA applies to non-material causes, so there is no need to reword it because you are just defining things to make it incoherent... Also, I already addressed this by way of taxi-cab fallacy and 'something cannot come from nothing on page 2'. If this is your final resort then you truly do not have a reason for your faitheism... Thanks
I'm done with you. If you're going to be an ass, don't expect people to want to engage with you honestly and in good faith. I spent a lot of time writing detailed responses to various points of yours. It's very frustrating when you then just pick out one thing I said, offer a paltry response barely better than "nuh uh!" and walk away. Since the only responses you've brought to bear against my arguments have either failed to address the points I've made about the equivocation (the core of my rebuttal), or are just are snarky comments and baseless assertions, I don't have to say much else anyway, since what I've said continues to stand unchallenged in any significant way.
I've said nothing to explain why I am an atheist. A theist could just as easily see the flaws in Kalam (and many do). You presented an old, oft debunked argument for the existence of god, and I explained the reason why many serious philosophers know it fails. It relies on equivocation on its face and a lot of bare assertions beyond that to get anywhere near demonstrating the existence of a god, much less whatever specific god you want it to. You've failed to offer serious response to my challenges.
Since you won't honestly engage with my arguments, I'll just leave this here.