The Cosmological Argument (in any form) is risible

Let's take a step back.Does there, in fact, exist an immortal, timeless, causeless, perfect, onmiscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator? Sure, it's possible! Does the cosmological argument prove that? No way!I spent half of my life as a Christian; I attended church every week; I assisted with youth programs in my summer holidays; I prayed every day; I got confirmed; I believed; I feared; I trusted. I was utterly convinced by the cosmological argument.Some of the greatest thinkers that the World has ever seen have been convinced (or have proposed, in some form) the cosmological argument; and yet I have the arrogance to call the argument risible. Yup. And I'll bring you along for the ride, if you're willing.God is immortal; God is eternal; God is timeless. God is all-seeing; God is all-knowing; God is all-loving. God is ineffable; God's mind is unkowable; do not question God; do not test God; do not try to understand God. Now, if the gentle reader agrees with any or all of these sentiments, it may be that the gentle reader is not an impartial and unbiased arbiter. In order to evaluate the argument fairly, it may be necessary to lift yourself out of yourself and take another look; this is not easy, but it can be done.Logical fallacies (which my opponent makes quite a thing of) have been studied by mankind for a while; this is a form of meta-analysis of logical arguments. I beg the gentle reader take some time and become acquainted with the logical fallacy known as "special pleading". Wikipedia is often not trusted, but it's an invaluable resource precisely because it has so many authors trying their best to be impartial. Please spend a little while on Wikipedia's page on "special pleading": [1]It is of interest to note the following paragraph: In medieval philosophy, it was not assumed that wherever a distinction is claimed, a relevant basis for the distinction should exist and be substantiated. Special pleading subverts an assumption of existential import.It behoves the intelligent reader to follow the link to "existential import" to understand what Wikipedia is telling you.Let me repeat myself again: when I was a Christian, the cosmological argument completely convinced me. It is a sublimely clever magic trick, but it's basically just a reinforcer for existing belief. If you already believe in God, the cosmological argument seems to make sense. However, it is just a well disguised form of special pleading.If you seek to split things into two categories (the caused and the uncaused) then you must provide sufficient reason or evidence to support this distinction. To fail to do so is to be special pleading.Now, I don't think that it's necessary to defend every cry of logical fallacy that my opponent makes. Suffice to say that I do not think the accusations are correct or appropriate; however, I'll answer one thing my opponent says: - This is the KCA:Everything that begins to exist has a cause;The universe began to exist;Therefore:The universe has a cause.- The rest is an implication of the KCA proposed by WLC, not necessarily inferred by it. No, sorry: Like all cosmological arguments, the kalam cosmological argument is an argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of God [2].But even in this first step we see the distinction between caused and uncaused forming (without sufficient justification). What does it mean to say that something is "uncaused"? Does that even make sense? What things do we ascribe this property to? Just God? I don't for one second say that it's not logically possible for God to be uncaused - but what I do say is that the CA simply fails to demonstrate that.The CA is, in all its forms, a logical fallacy in fancy dress. It's pretty cool in many ways, and it does appear, sometimes, to hold water... but, like all good magic tricks, if we look hard enough we spot the illusion and the correct response at this time is to be, like a child, delighted with the sheer magic of the illusion. It's a suprise, like a magic trick or a joke. It's funny!I thank my opponent for the debate and leave myself in the gentle voters' hands.[1] Special Pleading on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...