Refuting the kalam argument
I just finished the first draft of a new essay. It is a different approach to looking at the kalam cosmological argument (new to me, at least).
I take a stab at the ontological and design arguements with the same point of attack, but focus mostly on kalam.
My essential point is that theists choose to attrbute to God the powers of a creator while at the same time denying that the natural universe can have the same powers. It seems a biased an arbitrary choice, and one that doesn't seem to hold up given the classical refutation of the classical cosmological argument; that of the need for a creator for the creator.
Any criticism, thoughts, and (of course) showerings of praise would be highly welcome and appreciated.
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.