The Cosmological Argument (in any form) is risible

I thank Con for keeping things real; I'm enjoying this debate, no matter the result. I am glad if I have caused at least one person to chuckle; if nothing else, that makes it all worth while!I must point out that my comedic style for this debate is not without purpose: if I can show my audience how to reveal the inner funny in the argument then I'll empower them to have a chuckle every time they see it presented - this will have three positive effects: It will bring a smile to people's faces It may win me the debate It may change people's minds about whether this argument makes any sense (Just because the CA is ludicrous does not in any way disprove God's existence - that's not the point, here, just to end the usage of this silly argument by revealing its hilarious heart).However, I shouldn't keep the funnies up the whole time; I'd like to show some of the history of the argument (probably a last round offering), because I do find it interesting AND because I think that it helps illuminate the funny! If a picture is funny, how much funnier is a movie? Watching the argument develop over time, growing odder and odder appendages that are all singularly unfit for purpose has its own special charm!What I'd like to get is a bit of audience participation. I therefore encourage you to hear the funny in the back of your mind; let down your guard about whether it's mean to ridicule (it is questionable to ridicule people but I don't think that it's mean to ridicule ideas). Now, the idea that I would like you to keep in the back of your mind, is an existentially troubled rubber chicken! Sorry, I couldn't help it... so, imagine this flaccid, floppy, funny fake fowl perched on your shoulder... it can't speak (that would be ridiculous, obviously) but it can squawk. The chicken will squawk at you and you'll suddenly see the funny whenever the argument gets to the point of "God doesn't need to have a cause". Good luck to you all - I hope that you enjoy spotting the funny elements in the many variations of the constantly evolving Cosmological Argument for years to come!If you prefer, you may wish to use my line from before, in addition to the chicken, to spice it up a bit - everybody likes spicy chicken(or this may be a bit rich for your comedic predilections; add seasoning to taste; results may vary):"Everything has a cause except my imaginary friend, who is so amazingly amazing that he does not need a cause. Ner ner-ne ner ner, I'm going to go and play toy cars with my imaginary friend now!"So, I'll start with Con's suggestion (the late, great Ibn-Sīnā's {respect where it's due, *tips hat*} formulation of the CA):Approximately 1,000 years ago, Avicenna (a truly brilliant mind) proposed the following formulation †† of an idea that was, even at that time, at least 1,500 years old. I hope that I won't offend if I change the presentation of argument given slightly (whilst retaining all of the meaning): 1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists. *2. This contingent being has a cause (not itself).3. This cause must be a being, either contingent or not. **4. An infinite string of contingent beings is ludicrous.5. Therefore there must be a non-contingent (necessary) being. *** †† This is not exactly what Avicenna said (which I will address next round if I've got any spare space,I just thought that it would be rude not to answer my opponents framing of the argument) * I ask, in all seriousness, what does it mean to say that something exists such that if it exists it could have not existed? Because I have to say that whilst the imaginary rubber chicken on my shoulder is thus far silent, it is leaning forwards suspiciously and cocking one black and beady eye towards this rather odd phraseology! (And if you believe in a deterministic Universe, the proposition is impossible). Also, many theists believe that all of our souls are eternal; this would rule out this argument. ** As a point of interest, there are three questionable ideas in this one line: must the cause be a being (as a certainty)? Can a being be contingent (determinism says "no")? Can a being be non-contingent (reason says "no")? My chicken is clearing it's throat; it's hard to hold it back much more! It's psyching itself up to deafen me with an enormous and insistent SQUAWK.*** And there's the punchline! "My imaginary friend is so amazingly amazing that he does not need a cause"It's interesting to note that this argument is merely going back to abiogenesis - most forms of the CA go back further to the beginning of ALL things (not just "beings"). The idea of life arising from a chemical soup (no matter how improbable you consider that, it is at least a possibilitiy) demonstrates that there is a gaping great hole in the logic of the argument so big you could fit an excitable flapping chicken through it!Now, another unresolved issue: Con does not think that I have adequately taken down the formidable William Lane Craig. I think I have, but I'll have another pop! First of all, I don't think that we need to get into the detail of all of WLC's version of the KCA; it suffices to know how the man answers the question "Who created God?" [1]. I encourage you all to go and hear the answer in his own words.I hope that the gentle reader will by now be able to spot the problem from a mile away; I do hope that some gentle readers will be guffawing alongside their imaginary chickens already, but, if not, here goes:William starts his version of the KCA with "Everything that begins to exist"; this is a clever (well, you be the judge) way of catching (according to him!) everything that exists except, of course, his imaginary friend. I fail to see the logical distinction (in the way that WLC is using the phrase) between "Everything that begins to exist" and "Everything except my amazingly amazing imaginary friend". And if that doesn't convince you, then consider my chicken's response: "We agree on one thing: your imaginary friend never began to exist".The universal fact of every version of the Cosmological Argument is that it separates all things into two categories: those things that have a cause and those things that don't have a cause. In the one column you have everything except an imaginary friend, in the other column is, of course, an imaginary friend. This is what that looks like tabulated in rows:Things that have a cause : EVERYTHING (except my imaginary friend)Things that have no cause: my imaginary friend.This is how you now know to recognise the kernel of the Cosmological Argument. It's a very cleverly dressed up logical fallacy... it really is quite beautiful, until you look a little closely... then it reveals itself to be nothing but a highly polished t**d.Well done, all you great thinkers... what you have done is technically known as "special pleading" [2][3][4] and this is a logical fallacy. Essentially, you are creating a rule that applies to everything except your special case (in this case, an imaginary friend) and you are not giving sufficient reason for why your case should be an exception. Ah, but doesn't WLC claim not to be special pleading? Yes, yes he does... and his defence is the questionable claim that "atheists have always been claiming the same about the universe", which is close to true but technically untrue because: atheists have not sought to split things into two categories without reasonable justification... which is exactly what WLC is up to and is the very definition of special pleading! It's not entirely his fault, I suppose, he just chose to build a house upon the sand!I'll provide an approximate timeline here and, in the next round (if I've space after rebuttals), I'll cover the rich history of this argument. It's like watching an Emperor attempting to become camouflaged... he's tried walking naked, he's tried lots of silly hats, he's tried dark glasses, he's tried dressing himself in the finest of fine gold fibres and told people that they are unwise if they can't see the finery of the coat, but still the emperor is naked! He's jigged about to try to distract the careless observer... dances? Oh what amazing dances he has performed! What a load of balls!Here's a brief (and incomplete) history of the key players who helped dress this well-heeled fallacy:. .400 BC - Parmenides ("nothing comes from nothing"). .400 BC - Plato (first cause must "move itself", therefore it's alive; must be two: good and bad). .350 BC - Aristotle (like a man moving a rock with his stick). .250 AD - Plotinus (the One (good and beautiful), prior to all existents)1,000 AD - Avicenna (adds neccessary/possible and essence/existence)1,250 AD - Aquinas (First Cause: Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused) SQUAWK!1,700 AD - [5] Leibniz (similar to Avicenna)2,000 AD - Craig (Everything that "begins to exist" has a cause - but not my imaginary friend!)I include a link to a discussion of Leibniz's formulation because I think it's incredible to get a window into how susceptible even the greatest of minds are to confirmation bias (an idea that I will develop in the next round); in short, I can see how entirely appealing the idea of an eternal god is (and I am not denying the possibility of there being one)... I don't say that it's ludicrous to believe in an eternal god... I just say that it's risible to think that this belief can be justified by logic and reason with no reference to evidence![1] [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] Damer, T. Edward (2008). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-free Arguments (6 ed.). Cengage Learning. pp. 122–124. ISBN 978-0-495-09506-4.[4] Engel, S. Morris (1994), Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap, Courier Dover Publications, p. 102, ISBN 978-0-486-28274-9 [5] http://www3.nd.edu...