Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, it has a cause.

The KLA argument is a popular argument given for the existence of God. What makes a logical argument A logical argument proper is one that if the premises are true and the truth is preserved from the premises to the conclusion, then the conclusion is true as well. By truth preservation, I mean the conclusion can only consist of information inherent in the premises already. Information which is not in the premises themselves can appear in the conclusion, without violating the this integrity. This Argument proposed by Pro, is itself of very simple Aristotelian categorical logic. The most common example given is the following: P1. all men are mortal, P2. Socrates is a man, C1 Therefore Socrates is mortal. The Fool: That is, in so far as there exist a class of "things" which has a certain set of properties, all "entities" of the same class share the same set of properties necessary to be that class. In this case "men" is a category which "we" predicate as having the property of mortality. Therefore if "Socrates" is a man, then he would be correctly classified as being mortal. The Socratic syllogism is true categorically, but perhaps it turns out that Socrates "himself" only appeared to "us" as a human, but was really a God, like Jesus perhaps. If this was "really the case" and the argument was being applied to Socrates "himself" the argument would be false, as Socrates would have been falsely classified as merely a man. To be a sound argument, an argument must not only be internally valid, by virtue of categorization, but must also have external validity, that is, the terms being used must actually correspond to the objects that "actually" exist, and they must actually have the properties they are being claimed to have. Everything that begins to exist has a cause? The first premise presumes that there is a "class of things" which "began to exist". For example it appears obvious that this paragraph, in this very way, which I'm writing right now began to exist as I wrote it. And so if this is true, this would entail, that this paragraph, by categorical virtue, in the exact way it is now, to myself, goes under "the class of things" which begin to exist. I stress, to myself as it appears, for perhaps I've written it many times and I have merely forgotten. Perhaps what you read is not this foolish Paragraph in front of me, but something in between us has distorted the information transferring from my perception to yours. For I myself can only claim what I can recognize. For any other claim I make besides that which I recognize in some way, that is "Know" in some way, would leave me open to the charge that I "literally" don't know what I'm talking about. And so any proof for an entity, which I do not already possess some sort of knowledge about would be nonsensical. Either type corruption jeopardizes truth preservation between the claimer and what is being claimed enabling the possibility for Attribution Error. Attribution Error By attribution error, I mean misjudging where a particular property lies. Is the particular property of focus in the object which it is believed to be in or is it a property of the perceiver and their perceptions? Another common cause for errors in judgment is in the way we speak of things. Language is our conventional way of classification and categorization. Most people and especially People as a collective do not use language consistently enough. If they did, it could never come about that there were different languages. Personal bias and perception has a strong effect on what we call things, and since language is a measure of our ideas and thoughts, inconsistent language can corrupt how we think, judge and even perceive. For even when I create this sentence, I merely pooling from information together, from thought, memory or perception, into an external form perceivable by vision. This is the only way, that I myself, perhaps foolishly, recognize what the term "creation" means. That is, creation as far as “I” can say without appealing to ignorance, is always some, reorganization, or transforming something which is already there. I may then call this new composition or degradation something New, but it is always of the same overall "some thingness" that "IS" already. Similarly, the only sense of beginning "I" The Fool, can claim is that which I begin “to recognize.” For even as a Fool, I understand that something does not cease to exist simply by the fact that I can no longer recognize it and nor can I claim Truly that, "the thing" which is being "seen" exist only when seen, if it is a thing that can have the possibility of being seen at all. The Beginning of the END Let's consider the expression "begins to exist". Is there something awkward about the expression? How often is it that we say that "something is beginning to exist"? Try using it in an everyday sentence. "It is beginning to exist that it is sunny outside" !!??? This is very abnormal compared to simply saying "it is sunny outside", or that "the sun is coming "OUT." A logical language, is simply a well-defined language. While logic, "itself” is an a priori process of thinking. Thus, when you learn something about logic it should always seem like it was something you knew intuitively, but were just not able to put into words. The awkwardness unnaturalness of a premise, tends to indicate that the language or argument is being forced and/or warped, to “Appear correct” as appose to “Being” correct. Is it "beginning to exist", that the first premise is "beginning to exist" to look sketchy? If there is nothing wrong, with the first premise this should flow nicely. But there is something "excessive about it... There is something extra in the expression and premise which should not be there if the premise is true. What's the problem with this expression? To say that "something", is beginning to exist, has already presumed "the something" which of course should not yet be there if it did not already exist previously "In some sense". Therefore if a thing is to have the property or action of "becoming” did not exist "at all" already, it could NEVER be true, that it IS a Thing becoming or that “it IS” a Thing “being caused”. And what is a Cause without “something” being effected? Perhaps energy, and or action. And so it can be said with less assumptions, and more soundly that the universe HAS Cause or CAUSALITY, as a property. Not that the Universe was Caused, or is caused or will be caused. From where does it “begin to exist” that “the universe” need “Be“ if IT IS ANYTHING that needs To Be Caused? <(8D) The End of the Beginning Furthermore, if a “class of things” which begin are synonymously a "class of things "which have been caused, it follows that all beginnings are caused. Especially if what is meant is the beginning of “something.” I personally don't know what the beginning of nothing is. Perhaps foolishly, perhaps not. The Fool: But does this is help the conclusion out at all. Or does it make it worse? Let's examine this closely, if all beginnings, must be caused then this includes the Beginning of Cause. Therefore if the first premise is true then it is Truly False. As nothing in particular can "begin to cause anything" Without itself first being caused to "begin to cause", to “cause to begin” to “begin to cause” ..And so on. And so forth. But infinity is something that could never follow by any “order”, as there is no end from which it can begin, or begin to end. <(8D) Thus if the Proposition Pro proposes is true. There could never be a cause of anything, AT ALL. EVER, PERIOD. But, that which could NEVER be true is by Necessity false! Foolish Fatality…… <(80)