"1. God did not have a cause (according to theists)
2. God did not BEGIN to exist at some point (according to theists)
3. Therefore, God does not exist (my conclusion per Kalam argument in reverse)"
This is not a logically valid argument. There is no rule of inference of the form “X is not-Y. X is not-Z. Therefore, X is not A.” This is the fallacy of four terms. Further, I’m not sure what “kalam in reverse” even means. The kalam, as one may recall, is:
4. Whatever begins to exist had a cause.
5. The universe began to exist.
6. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
The only thing I can think of is that the objector is trying to use modus tollens on the first premise. But then all that follows is:
7. Therefore, God did not begin to exist.
What they really need in order to be successful is the premise:
8. Whatever did not begin to exist and does not have a cause does not exist.
However, this is just question-begging. That is, without other argument(s), the only reason to take (8) as true is because one already believes (3) is true. Further, we seem to have decided counterexamples to (8). First, consider numbers, rules of mathematics, and laws of logic. There are Platonists and neo-Platonists who believe these things exist, and do so necessarily (that is, independently of a cause). For really, (8) necessarily implies:
9. There are no necessarily-existing objects.
(9) seems absolutely unsupportable.
But further, consider the atheist herself has a defeating counterexample to (8), and hence (9). The universe itself! For most atheists will claim the universe has always existed, and, since they deny the conclusion of the kalam, deny it has a cause. But then the universe fulfills both conditions for non-existence, and hence by accepting (8), one accepts the absurdity that the universe does not exist.
Finally, it is unclear which, if any, premises of the kalam this was supposed to undercut or defeat. In theory, this is perfectly consistent with the causal principle, the universe’s coming into existence, and therefore the universe’s having a cause. It simply eliminates a God who was not caused and/or did not begin to exist—but only if successful (which obviously, it was not). This was just an academic exercise, and yes, I picked the worst objection to the kalam I have seen in a while. But it sure was interesting.-----------------------------------------------
All posts, and the blog Possible Worlds, are the sole intellectual property of Randy Everist. One may reprint part or all of this post so long as: a) full attribution is given (Randy Everist, Possible Worlds), b) all use is non-commercial, and c) one is in compliance with the Creative Commons license at the bottom on the main page of this blog.