From two threads ago:

re: #164 Love-Child of Cassandra and Sisyphus

Just… no. Your flowchart is just special pleading, though for some reason you think it profound.

Do you understand the fallacy you are committing?

— freetoken fights fecking fascists (@freetoken) July 24, 2019

re: #197 Anymouse 🌹

Specifically, it is the Christian apologetic argument known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Aside from the fact that philosophical arguments prove nothing, it fails because it makes an unfalsifiable assumption for its first argument “everything which exists must have a cause.”

It then makes an unproveable assumption “that cause must be a god, and specifically the Christian god.”

William Lane Craig resurrected this argument from mediæval Islamic scholarship. “Kalam” is actually the name of Islamic scholarship. Modern Islam has abandoned this argument for the existence of God (Allah).

So the argument for proof of a Christian god based on this argument can be debunked multiple ways:

a) It’s not a Christian argument. (Appeal to their bigotry.)
b) The correct answers to all the premises is “we don’t know,” therefore God as the conclusion can be rejected outright (because the premises are faulty and God has never been demonstrated).

I addressed this as my first apologetics fail on my wife’s Website.

Apologetics Fail #1
Kalam Cosmological Argument (Goes to Cynics for a Better Tomorrow)