*The Kalam’s most succinct refutation*

The modern formulation of the Kalam cosmological argument by Craig is made of 2 syllogisms, A and B:

Syllogism A:
1a. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2a. The universe began to exist.
3a. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

...

Syllogism B:
1b. The universe has a cause.
2b. Then an uncaused, *personal* Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
3b. Therefore, an uncaused Creator exists.

Fallacies follow:

1a. How do you know? => argument from ignorance.

Example: steel sinks, therefore anything made of steel sinks. This until you try to put a steel pot on water, and observe it float.

...

2a. Again, how do you know? How to define “begin” before time even exists? => argument from ignorance.

Steven Hawking put this better than I could: “To ask what comes before the universe is like asking what lies south of the South Pole”.

Not all questions are meaningful.

...

3a Not proven until 1a and 2a are proven.

The refutation could stop here but, *for the sake of the argument let’s imagine* that syllogism A is proven:

2b How do you know the creator is a *personal* creator? => non sequitur.

3b and 2b define only 2 indispensable requirements for the creator: *uncaused and timeless*.

This leads to *more* questions about a complex being with many other attributes. This takes us further away...

...from real answers. All we need to do to move in the opposite direction (the one that leads to *less questions* and *more answers*) is to take those 2 requirements (uncaused, timeless) and assign them to the universe itself.

The universe doesn’t require a creator anymore.