The Cosmological Argument (in any form) is risible

Well, now, well now...I'm going to ignore the vast majority of incorrectly attributed calls of "fallacy"; I'll deal with the most important one:=================================================================================- Even more so, Pro resorts to dubious semantics to distort the philosophical nature of the CA by inserting words like “supernatural”, “magic”, “natural”, “source”. . . which are not precisely identified as to represent the CA [6], which constitute a straw man fallacy.=================================================================================Is what I have done to create a straw man? Certainly not. I think we need a name for falsely playing the "straw man" card. Whatever fallacy that is, Con is guilty of it.A straw man is when, for the sake of show, one tackles an argument that was not made. I am tackling the arguments that *have* been made. I am rewording them, sure, but not in a dishonest way that changes the meaning... I am simply pointing out the glaring flaws. And there are glaring flaws.The fact that people have debated the CA for hundreds or thousands of years just makes the whole debacle funnier! But Con makes a fair point, that I must show the argument per se is laughably wrong. I intend to do so.Is it a parody, a straw man, or a fair assessment when I point out that the CA simply invents a supernatural realm in which causation is magically not a concern any more? I am merely providing the punchline to the joke that is the CA. I am providing the key, the perspective from which we can see the CA for what it really is: a sham!Con mentions the Kalam Cosmological Argument; I am very familiar with it. William Lane Craig is a formidable opponent, and has done a good job in obfuscating the issue even further but, crucially, the same argument succesfully derails the KCA.Here is a brief synopsis of William Lane Craig's formation of the KCA: Everything that begins to exist has a cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore: The universe has a cause. Now he uses this conclusion to go further: The universe has a cause; If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universeexists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore: An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. (from Wikipedia [1])If you're not laughing at this point, you should be! It's the most laughably stupid thing I've ever seen issue from an intelligent mind. It's nonsense. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes. Look at it and trust yourself and you'll see the corpulent naked form of the Emperor... he's naked!Do you see how my simple description of what's wrong with the CA still applies to the KCA?1. Everything in the Natural World that exists has a cause of its existence.2. Therefore we must resort to Supernatural causation.3. It is not necessary to inquire too far into what causes Supernatural things.In the case of the KCA, we have these essential gems:"Everything that begins to exist" - what cunning sophistry is this? Who uses phrases like that!?"An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists" - AHEM, what? You do who? Come again! Seriously, is the gentle reader not having a bit of a chortle (as I indeed am, right now)?AN UNCAUSED PERSONAL CREATOR? How is that not funny?And somebody is claiming to have a logical proof of this, based on the existence of something rather than nothing? Come on, this is farcical... this is good stuff. This is comedy gold!Here's the key: it doesn't matter how much dancing around in a silly costume you do, nor how much you mutter some magic words and tap the argument with a magic wand, nor how much you dress the silly thing up in fine robes made from infinitely thin golden threads, there it is, naked, ugly, pretending to be intelligent, logical and rational... this, really, is what makes the thing so risible. It's an incredibly dumb thing dressed up to look smart... the amusement stems from the sheer amount of effort that's gone into shining this ancient t**d of an argument.I'll tell you again what's so laughably funny about the Cosmological Argument; in all its forms, it boils down to something like this:"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 with my toy cars with my imaginary friend now!"That is simply not a straw man, gentle reader; it's a lampoon and it accurately highlights what's wrong with every version of the CA.I challenge Con to find any formulation of the CA which doesn't boil down to this utterly risible proposition.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...