Thought on How You Can Know that the Kalam Argument is Strong

One of the ways in which we can know that a certain theistic argument is strong and compelling is by observing how atheists fallaciously react to it, for when we take the Kalam Cosmological Argument for example, we can begin to see atheists grasping at any mere possible doubt to dispute the argument rather than a reasonable doubt about it (essentially engaging in a form of selective hyper-skepticism which they never use anywhere else (such as the theory of evolution, for example)), or they try to divert the whole discussion by claiming that the argument does not specifically prove the Christian God (something that it was never meant to do), or they try to distract us from the argument by straw-manningly claiming that the “original” version of the cosmological argument is based on the idea that ‘everything has a cause’ (as if that objection, even if true, which it’s not, would have any relevance for the Kalam version of the argument), or, finally, they try to assert that support for the premises in the argument are based on the idea of composition rather than on induction (induction, meaning the tool of reasoning upon which all science depends); so, when you see such utterly bad and irrelevant objections, you know you struck the atheist on a very painful nerve.