Reply #139: My point is

[parkening]

that the KCA isn't the complete argument. It's just a starting point. And, of course, we use it as part of our justification for belief in God. That's the whole reason we thought it up. Just like you guys have arguments you make solely to justify your beliefs.

Just a few points about assumptions:

I don't assume any physical properties outside the universe. Just laws, ie causality. I'm comfortable with that. And realize it is an assumption.

It would do you well to examine the assumptions that are inherent (and rampant, and arbitrary) in the naturalistic model. You make it sound as if we're the only ones making assumptions. It's time to take stock of your own.

You've stated before that "we just don't know" and you're comfortable with that. And then I'm called the intellectually lazy one.

To call the KCA a lie is a bit of a stretch. I have presented a logically valid argument, defended the premises, and been very honest regarding the assumptions. I challenge you to present your case in a similar fashion (not on this thread, though, PLEASE!). Send me a message with a link when you're ready to start.