Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whilst God is ultimately illusory, it is still a very necessary useful illusion that is adapted via evolution.
Discuss?? View??

Assuming you are talking about an uncaused mind when you reference "God", why is it that you think mind is illusionary?

The idea that God is an illusion, i.e. a transcendental illusion, is from Kant.

Here's Bard's [with reservations] answer in highly summarized outline.;
in [] = mine.
(to fully understand the points in detail one need to be very familiar with Kant's CPR)

In his seminal work, the "Critique of Pure Reason," Immanuel Kant launched a powerful critique of traditional proofs for the existence of God, effectively declaring the idea of God an "illusion," albeit a useful one.

His complex argument can be summarized in the following points:

1. The Limits of Reason: Kant argued that human reason is inherently limited in its scope. It can only operate on the basis of sensory experience and organize it using categories like cause and effect. These categories, however, are not inherent in reality but rather represent the human mind's way of interpreting the world.

2. The Transcendental Illusion: When reason ventures beyond the realm of experience and attempts to grasp things-in-themselves, which are the "real" objects beyond our subjective perception, it falls prey to a "transcendental illusion." This illusion arises because reason misconstrues its own categories as features of reality itself.

3. The Dialectical Illusion: One of the most prominent examples of this illusion is the "dialectical illusion." When reason attempts to prove the existence of God, it leads to contradictory antinomies, such as the famous "cosmological antinomy" which argues both for and against the existence of a first cause. These antinomies reveal the inherent limitations of reason in dealing with matters beyond experience.

4. The Flawed Arguments for God: Specifically, Kant analyzed and dismantled the three traditional arguments for God's existence: the ontological, cosmological, and physico-theological arguments. He demonstrated how each argument falls prey to logical fallacies and ultimately fails to provide a valid proof for God's existence.

5. God as a Regulative Idea: [The idea of God is a useful illusion] Despite declaring God an illusion, Kant recognized the importance of the idea for both morality and science. He argued that the idea of God, while not objectively true, serves as a valuable "regulative idea" that guides human thought and action. It provides a sense of unity and purpose to the universe, inspires ethical behavior, and encourages the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

While Kant's critique of traditional proofs for God's existence left many questioning the very concept of a divine being, his work also opened up new avenues for exploring religious belief. By separating the "constitutive" function of reason, which aims to provide objective knowledge, from its "regulative" function, which provides moral and practical guidance, Kant offered a framework for a more nuanced understanding of the role of faith in human life.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is how we can expose the fallacy:

Craig modified Ghazali's P1 as:
1.. If the [scientific] universe began to exist, then the [scientific] universe has a [scientific] cause of its [scientific] beginning.
2. The [scientific] universe began to exist [scientifically] .
3. Therefore, the [scientific] universe has a cause of its [scientific] beginning
....................................................................
4. which is an Uncaused First Cause [unscientific] as
5. A Personal Being [unscientific] with [unscientific]Freedom of the Will -a [unscientific]Personal Creator

the .............. line represent that deceptive big leap from the scientific FSK into the theological FSK of la la land.

Referring to the universe as "the scientific universe" allows one to infer that there is at least one other universe which is not scientific. Generally that is identified as "supernatural".

So the first premise is unnecessary worded.

The idea appears to be that there has to be agreement of what is meant by "The Universe"

I had argued elsewhere,
What is real, true, knowledge and objective must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most real, objective and credible at present.
There are no other FSKs which are more credible than the present scientific FSK.
Can you think of any otherwise.

If there is a least one other universe, then there must be an infinite number of universes.
But where are they, they can only be a speculation within some speculative-supernatural-FSKs which cannot be more real than the existing human-based scientific FSK.
Relative such supernatural FSK would be at the other extreme of realness and objective in contrast to the scientific FSK as the standard.

The Universe as generally accepted;

• The universe is ALL of space and time[a] and their contents.[10] It comprises ALL of existence, any fundamental interaction, physical process and physical constant, and therefore all forms of energy and matter, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

Because the universe is defined as ALL there is, there cannot be another 'all there is'.
So the scientific universe is the only universe which can be accepted without question and is evident.
I believe Craig agreed P1 implied the scientific universe [got to double check].

Thus P1 above has to be
1.. If the [scientific] universe began to exist, then the [scientific] universe has a [scientific] cause of its [scientific] beginning.

If anyone insist there are other universes which are supernatural and are not scientific then they will have to prove it is possible for them to exists at least scientifically for them to be real [FSK-based].