Oh, so I should have quoted this post: I had actually missed that post, so thanks for prompting me to find it. So my point about both of you conflating the informal fallacy with invalidity stands. Again, already addressed, since I've shown an alternative to god that did not 'begin to exist' (or even if identified with god, cannot possibly be said to 'begin to exist'). That premise in the OP is not the argument as made by the KCA, and even then, does not, on its own, beg the question. 'Everything except God has a cause' allows for the possibility that god does not exist, since anything that does not exist trivially has no cause. Maybe not now, but that quote you prompted me to find has you admitting that you have conflated begging the question with invalidating an argument. But you do have a proven tendency to do so. Yes, I get that the weakness of your argument makes you feel the need to interject ad hominem characterizations. Try to stay on point...attack the arguments. The fact that this elementary fact had to be corrected, especially after attacking others based on this ignorance, demonstrates that your reasoning is suspect. Begging the question is actually a necessary feature of deductive reasoning. Whether it weakens the argument, and why, is not a settled matter. Begging the Question A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. ... Insofar as the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is "contained" in the premises from which it is deduced, this containing might seem to be a case of presupposing, and thus any deductively valid argument might seem to be begging the question. It is still an open question among logicians as to why some deductively valid arguments are considered to be begging the question and others are not. - http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#BeggingtheQuestion It is rather trivial that someone actively seeking to assume the conclusion could easily obfuscate it over several premises (or even an unstated premise), so being isolated to a single premise is not determinative. Really? My first sentence in this thread was: 'No, this argument [KCA] is not convincing, even for this theist.' I have repeated this sentiment often in this thread... that the KCA is not persuasive... which is a fairly clear expression the strength of the argument. I've also said, 'To be clear, I do think the KCA is valid', and so far the only objection has been begging the question (which you've admitted does not invalidate the argument). Just because my personal motivation is by inductive reasoning does not mean that I cannot make deductive appeals in my arguments (especially with people who only seem willing to accept deductive reasoning, even while repeatedly claiming an informal fallacy invalidates a deductive argument). Really? Again with the ad hominem characterizations? Your argument really should be strong enough to address mine without lowering yourself to impugning my motivations or attitude, which have nothing to do with the actual argument. You have admitted at least one serious error, but without even the slightest hint of justification (beyond maybe simple confirmation bias). I've yet to see you apologize to Jan or myself for the attacks made using that erroneous understanding of yours.