Kalam Even Sillier Than Previously Thought?
We've certainly covered the Kalam cosmological argument, but it occurred to me that it fails for a simpler reason than I thought: fallacy of composition.
The argument suggests that everything in nature has a cause. The erroneous conclusion is that the universe has a cause, because it's part of nature. What bothers me about that is that it's an equivocation of "universe", as I don't think it's being straightforward to consider "the universe" to be anything but equivalent to "nature". In that case, the argument is that nature has a cause, because everything IN nature has a cause. Thus, fallacy of composition.
If one were to maintain that this universe is merely part of nature, presenting a multiple universe idea (or something like that), then the implication is that we know that other universes also have necessary cause-and-effect. Since we don't, the equivocation (via a hasty generalization about all universes) is more apparent.
The only way to get around it would be to suggest that all natures have a cause, which exposes what many of us intuitively see as the silliness of the argument in the first place.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence