A Meta-analysis

[Prismatic]

OK, I have heard the first presentation of the two debaters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07QUPuZg05I

Rather than discussing the empirical based scientific theories, here is a meta-analysis of the debate.

WLC main theme:
Contemporary cosmological evidence support theological neutral premises in philosophical arguments for conclusions that has theistic significance.

Even before WLC present his argument his main proposition already indicates the potential for the fallacy of equivocation in his overall argument.
1. Contemporary cosmological evidence is empirically based on the Scientific Method.
2. Theistic propositions are a priori and transcendental, i.e. non-empirical.
1 to 2 is like oil is to water.

WLC introduced the Kalam argument as one of his main argument;
1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.
2. The Universe began to exist
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence.

Note WLC did not define "transcendental" which in philosophy, generally refer to the a priori and non-empirical.
(this is where the sophistry [ok unintentional] slides in]
WLC proposed the cosmological evidence support the plausibility of premise 2 thus the conclusion.

Here is how the fallacy of equivocation is reflected in his Kalam argument;
1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence. (This transcendentally based, thus non-empirical)
2. The Universe began to exist -support by cosmology -empirical based evidence
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause (non-empirical) which brought the universe into existence (empirical).

As one can see the argument is non-sequitor due to conflation and equivocation of the different senses, i.e. the empirical and the non-empirical.

At 45:30 Carroll explain there is a difference between Naturalism and Theism. If Carroll is familiar with philosophical arguments, he should have explained it in terms of the fallacy of equivocation (subtle in this case).

Cosmology as a Science is qualified strictly to its Scientific Framework, method and assumptions (uniformity, etc) grounded on observations and strict justification methods.
Theism has it own framework and it is grounded on an illusion, faith and psychology.

Carroll's presentation and arguments are confined within the Scientific framework, thus there is no issues here at all. If any, it is up to his scientific peers to question him not by a non-scientific WLC.

WLC meanwhile attempt to conflate the theistic framework and the Scientific Framework, this is forcing square pegs into round holes.

IMO, WLC is fallacious right from the start.
Why? it is the psychology.

Kant saw that long ago, how these illusions [transcendent God, etc.] are the sirens of philosophical arguments.

They are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion, which unceasingly mocks and torments him

[jf1354]

I don't see how anything you said shows that empirical evidence can't be used to support neutral theological claims in philosophical arguments with theological significance. If the Kalam Cosmological Argument was a theorem or model then mixing both the transcendent and the empirical might be a problem but it's a philosophical argument for God. To criticize it for mixing these two categories begs the question: why can't what we observe in the universe leads us to say God is more or less likely?

It seems rather that you're arguing that no evidence at all could ever prove the existence of God. If we write God out of the equation and define Him as an illusion as a part of our metaphysical framework then is it any surprise that an argument like the Kalam wouldn't seem convincing?

Furthermore, when Carroll says that the world we see is not one we would expect to be created by God, isn't he also mixing the transcendental and the empirical? If so, then what makes him any better than Craig?

[Prismatic]

I don't see how anything you said shows that empirical evidence can't be used to support neutral theological claims in philosophical arguments with theological significance. If the Kalam Cosmological Argument was a theorem or model then mixing both the transcendent and the empirical might be a problem but it's a philosophical argument for God. To criticize it for mixing these two categories begs the question: why can't what we observe in the universe leads us to say God is more or less likely?

It is because it is a philosophical argument that we need a greater degree of precision.
As I have shown above, the argument is non-sequitor due to the equivocation of the ‘transcendental’ with the ‘empirical’. Here is the fallacious argument again;

1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence. (This is transcendentally based, thus non-empirical)
2. The Universe began to exist -support by cosmology -empirical based evidence
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause (non-empirical) which brought the universe into existence (empirical).

Premise 1 does not follow through the conclusion.

If the argument were to follow to the conclusion, then it should be as follows’

1. If the empirical Universe began to exists, then there is an empirical cause which brought the empirical universe into existence.
2. The Universe began to exist -support by cosmology -empirical based evidence, e.g. Big Bang
3. Therefore there is an (empirical cause) which brought the (empirical) universe into existence.

Note how all the premises follow strictly to the conclusion in this sound and valid argument.

In the case of WLC’s Kalam argument, the premises do not follow to the conclusion.

It seems rather that you're arguing that no evidence at all could ever prove the existence of God. If we write God out of the equation and define Him as an illusion as a part of our metaphysical framework then is it any surprise that an argument like the Kalam wouldn't seem convincing?

As I always has asserted, empirical evidence cannot be used to support the existence of a transcendental God.
It is impossible for God to be empirically real.
It is possible to use transcendental logic to infer a transcendental deistic God, but it cannot prove an empirical real living God that send his son Jesus down to Earth.     

Furthermore, when Carroll says that the world we see is not one we would expect to be created by God, isn't he also mixing the transcendental and the empirical? If so, then what makes him any better than Craig?

What Carroll is stating is simply, do not mix and conflate the empirical with the transcendental. He did that in the later part of his first presentation when he contrasted naturalism versus theism.
What Carroll did was simply to stick and presented his expertise i.e. scientific cosmology, and he did not mix the 'empirical' with the 'transcendental' at all.

[jf1354]

It is because it is a philosophical argument that we need a greater degree of precision.
As I have shown above, the argument is non-sequitor due to the equivocation of the ‘transcendental’ with the ‘empirical’. Here is the fallacious argument again;

1. If the Universe began to exists, then there is a transcendent cause which brought the universe into existence. (This is transcendentally based, thus non-empirical)
2. The Universe began to exist -support by cosmology -empirical based evidence
3. Therefore there is a transcendent cause (non-empirical) which brought the universe into existence (empirical).

Premise 1 does not follow through the conclusion.

If the argument were to follow to the conclusion, then it should be as follows’

1. If the empirical Universe began to exists, then there is an empirical cause which brought the empirical universe into existence.
2. The Universe began to exist -support by cosmology -empirical based evidence, e.g. Big Bang
3. Therefore there is an (empirical cause) which brought the (empirical) universe into existence.

Note how all the premises follow strictly to the conclusion in this sound and valid argument.

In the case of WLC’s Kalam argument, the premises do not follow to the conclusion.

You haven't at all shown that the premises don't reach the conclusion of WLC's Kalam argument. Instead you've merely restated your position that the transcendental shouldn't be mixed with the empirical so I'll restate my original question: why not?

To the contrary, certain things we observe depend on the transcendental in order to rationally make sense. For example, the intentionality of objects (that objects can be about something) can't be proven on a naturalistic framework. But then again, where would naturalism or even science for that matter be if objects had no value?  What would this conversation even be if words didn't even have meaning?

When looking at the beginning of the universe from nothing, we are by the very nature of the argument looking for a transcendental cause. Empirical evidence can't answer the question because there were no physical laws, no matter, no time, not even energy before the big bang. Rather than explore the question further, you seem content with narrowing the goal posts to suit a naturalistic framework.

As I always has asserted, empirical evidence cannot be used to support the existence of a transcendental God.
It is impossible for God to be empirically real.
It is possible to use transcendental logic to infer a transcendental deistic God, but it cannot prove an empirical real living God that send his son Jesus down to Earth.

Once again, you have merely asserted this without an explanation or reason to back it up. If our metaphysical framework for understanding reality says that God can't exist then all arguments to the contrary will seem fallacious and God an illusion. You haven't proved that God is an illusion but have merely tried to define Him out of existence in the hopes that He quietly goes away.

What Carroll is stating is simply, do not mix and conflate the empirical with the transcendental. He did that in the later part of his first presentation when he contrasted naturalism versus theism.
What Carroll did was simply to stick and presented his expertise i.e. scientific cosmology, and he did not mix the 'empirical' with the 'transcendental' at all.

Of course his main strength was his empirical evidence and his critique of Craig's use of the empirical data. However, I don't think that he would say that his philosophy doesn't work because it mixes the transcendental with the empirical in the same way you do. From the very beginning of the debate, he stated that naturalism makes better sense of the world then theism and he offered philosophic reasons for thinking so. Even though he differs drastically theologically from Craig, he is still using empirical data to make a theological conclusion (that God is unlikely).

[Prismatic]

You haven't at all shown that the premises don't reach the conclusion of WLC's Kalam argument. Instead you've merely restated your position that the transcendental shouldn't be mixed with the empirical so I'll restate my original question: why not?

Surely you have heard of the common saying 'one is talking apples, the other oranges' and oil and water don't mix.
I have explained in the above why the contexts are different. Note I have put the matching context in blue. WLC's premises do not follow (non-sequitor) to the conclusion as I had explained while I gave an example that how it should be presented if it is to follow.

Perhaps you still do not get the essence of the word 'transcendental.'
'Transcendental' means relating to things that are confined beyond and has no link to the senses and the full range of sensible cognitions, i.e. the empirical. Note the highlighted words.
As such, one cannot use the 'empirical' to justify the 'transcendental'.
In addition, WLC qualified his 'transcendental' has theistic significance.

To the contrary, certain things we observe depend on the transcendental in order to rationally make sense. For example, the intentionality of objects (that objects can be about something) can't be proven on a naturalistic framework. But then again, where would naturalism or even science for that matter be if objects had no value?  What would this conversation even be if words didn't even have meaning?

Science is purely objective and thus has no direct link with 'value.' Intentionality is not categorized as 'transcendental' in the philosophical sense, as it is normally associated with the empirical. All intentions are expressed ultimately via the senses, in terms of observations or hearing of works.
If one asserts, God has intentions, then one is conflating the empirical with the transcendental.

When looking at the beginning of the universe from nothing, we are by the very nature of the argument looking for a transcendental cause. Empirical evidence can't answer the question because there were no physical laws, no matter, no time, not even energy before the big bang. Rather than explore the question further, you seem content with narrowing the goal posts to suit a naturalistic framework.

That is the point, empirical evidence and anything that is empirical, e.g. Scientific Cosmology, cannot give answers to a transcendental cause with theistic significance.
'Theistic' means God.
Whilst WLC qualify the debate is not about proving the existence of God, 'transcendent cause' inevitably imply the positive existence of God.
I am not narrowing the goal posts. What I am asserting is conflating and equivocating the transcendental (of theistic significance) with the empirical (scientific) is fallacious and a non-starter. Note below;

Prismatic: As I always has asserted, empirical evidence cannot be used to support the existence of a transcendental God.
It is impossible for God to be empirically real.
It is possible to use transcendental logic to infer a transcendental deistic God, but it cannot prove an empirical real living God that send his son Jesus down to Earth.

Once again, you have merely asserted this without an explanation or reason to back it up. If our metaphysical framework for understanding reality says that God can't exist then all arguments to the contrary will seem fallacious and God an illusion. You haven't proved that God is an illusion but have merely tried to define Him out of existence in the hopes that He quietly goes away.

In above, I did not say 'God cannot exists.'
I said God can be argued to exist with transcendental logic in the deistic sense, but not theistic (a living God) sense.
But if one used Science to support a God, then it has to be an empirical God. An empirical God must pass empirical tests, verifications and justification just like any scientific objects.

Btw, I have proofs to support God is an illusory. It is too tedious to argue it out, so I am not presenting that here.

Of course his main strength was his empirical evidence and his critique of Craig's use of the empirical data. However, I don't think that he would say that his philosophy doesn't work because it mixes the transcendental with the empirical in the same way you do.
From the very beginning of the debate, he stated that naturalism makes better sense of the world then theism and he offered philosophic reasons for thinking so. Even though he differs drastically theologically from Craig, he is still using empirical data to make a theological conclusion (that God is unlikely).

Carroll is not a philosopher. That is why he could not use refined Critical Philosophy to critique like what I am presenting above.

Within the debate, I stated WLC commit the fallacy of equivocation by conflating the empirical with the transcendental.
As the terms were not precisely determined, WLC was able to slide through with this sort of unintentional sophistry.
Even if we failed to expose this refine sophistry, the eventual conclusion (that relied on the empirical cosmology) will not passed the empirical tests.

Say, if one accept WLC's Kalam  (equivocation not highlighted) argument, i.e. the transcendental cause is plausible.
The transcendental cause with theistic significance imply the theistic God exists (plausibly, a hypothesis).
This proposition will not pass the empirical tests that a God exists.
This is why a belief in God's existence has to be by faith, i.e. a belief without proofs, reason or rationality.

Note my meta-analysis exposed the fallacy right from the beginning so we don't have to waste time arguing who cosmological theory is right or wrong. That is the business of the cosmological scientists.

As some has said, at least this WLC-Carroll debate enable some to learn more about cosmology and its issues. As far as the plausibility of a transcendental cause thus God exists, that had been moved to the 'Recycled Bin' and removed by credible philosophy-proper.

[jf1354]

Surely you have heard of the common saying 'one is talking apples, the other oranges' and oil and water don't mix.
I have explained in the above why the contexts are different. Note I have put the matching context in blue. WLC's premises do not follow (non-sequitor) to the conclusion as I had explained while I gave an example that how it should be presented if it is to follow.

Perhaps you still do not get the essence of the word 'transcendental.'
'Transcendental' means relating to things that are confined beyond and has no link to the senses and the full range of sensible cognitions, i.e. the empirical. Note the highlighted words.
As such, one cannot use the 'empirical' to justify the 'transcendental'.
In addition, WLC qualified his 'transcendental' has theistic significance.

I agree that there is a distinct difference between the transcendental and the empirical but from this it doesn't follow that they are in no way related to each other. In other words, to go beyond the senses doesn't imply that there is no link to the senses.

In one way that I think there is a link between the transcendental and the empirical is the way Craig defines it.  Empirical claims (such as the world coming into being or that the world is full of suffering) can have theological or transcendental ramifications (making the existence of God more or less likely). As far as I can tell the only reasons you give for holding on to these Non-Overlapping Magistaria are a priori and will continue to think so unless given a reason.

I don't like getting so wrapped up in a disagreement over definitions but I still don't see why there cannot be a link between the two (even in the light of your highlighted words) other than your defining them this way. This is not something all philosophers (or even Craig and Carroll for that matter) would agree with.

Science is purely objective and thus has no direct link with 'value.' Intentionality is not categorized as 'transcendental' in the philosophical sense, as it is normally associated with the empirical. All intentions are expressed ultimately via the senses, in terms of observations or hearing of works.
If one asserts, God has intentions, then one is conflating the empirical with the transcendental

We make sense of value through our senses but at the same time we can't prove a value using the scientific method. As such, I don't think value can be considered empirical as the scientific method is the best tool for making sense of empirical data. Yet, everybody perceives and uses value to bolster any intellectual framework for making sense of the world. To me, this can only be direct experience with the transcendental or illusion.

That is the point, empirical evidence and anything that is empirical, e.g. Scientific Cosmology, cannot give answers to a transcendental cause with theistic significance.
'Theistic' means God.
Whilst WLC qualify the debate is not about proving the existence of God, 'transcendent cause' inevitably imply the positive existence of God.
I am not narrowing the goal posts. What I am asserting is conflating and equivocating the transcendental (of theistic significance) with the empirical (scientific) is fallacious and a non-starter. Note below;

Prismatic: As I always has asserted, empirical evidence cannot be used to support the existence of a transcendental God.
"It is impossible for God to be empirically real.
It is possible to use transcendental logic to infer a transcendental deistic God, but it cannot prove an empirical real living God that send his son Jesus down to Earth"

But in the context of talking about the explanation of the Universe we are forced to speak of the transcendental whether the explanation is God or something else. We are dealing with an explanation outside of the parameters of everything we could possibly call empirical. Inevitably, we are forced to mix our apples and oranges here or cling to absurdities like the universe being self-caused.

In above, I did not say 'God cannot exists.'
I said God can be argued to exist with transcendental logic in the deistic sense, but not theistic (a living God) sense.
But if one used Science to support a God, then it has to be an empirical God. An empirical God must pass empirical tests, verifications and justification just like any scientific objects.

Btw, I have proofs to support God is an illusory. It is too tedious to argue it out, so I am not presenting that here.

I would like to here your proofs for assuming God is illusory but to narrow the topic it might be best to save them for another conversation.

Carroll is not a philosopher. That is why he could not use refined Critical Philosophy to critique like what I am presenting above.

Within the debate, I stated WLC commit the fallacy of equivocation by conflating the empirical with the transcendental.
As the terms were not precisely determined, WLC was able to slide through with this sort of unintentional sophistry.
Even if we failed to expose this refine sophistry, the eventual conclusion (that relied on the empirical cosmology) will not passed the empirical tests.
 

Keep in mind that Carroll pressed his own reasons for why the world we see shows God unlikely (note the part at 1:35:00 during the QA when he criticizes Georges Lemaître for his belief that science and religion can't mix). My point is that if Craig is guilty of equivocation in his argument then by consequence so is Carroll and any other atheistic proof to show God is unlikely for the same reason. They are making transcendental conclusions from empirical premises.

Say, if one accept WLC's Kalam  (equivocation not highlighted) argument, i.e. the transcendental cause is plausible.
The transcendental cause with theistic significance imply the theistic God exists (plausibly, a hypothesis).
This proposition will not pass the empirical tests that a God exists.
This is why a belief in God's existence has to be by faith, i.e. a belief without proofs, reason or rationality.

But note that Craig is not posing God as a scientific hypothesis but as a rational conclusion derived from a philosophical argument. Philosophy can make sense of the entire spectrum of knowledge including both the transcendental and the empirical. Therefore, it is not a problem at all that Craig (or Carroll for that matter) used science as a part of their philosophical arguments for and against God. This is not the same as believing in God on faith but rather following an argument to it's logical conclusion.

[Prismatic]

I agree that there is a distinct difference between the transcendental and the empirical but from this it doesn't follow that they are in no way related to each other. In other words, to go beyond the senses doesn't imply that there is no link to the senses.

In one way that I think there is a link between the transcendental and the empirical is the way Craig defines it.  Empirical claims (such as the world coming into being or that the world is full of suffering) can have theological or transcendental ramifications (making the existence of God more or less likely). As far as I can tell the only reasons you give for holding on to these Non-Overlapping Magistaria are a priori and will continue to think so unless given a reason.

I don't like getting so wrapped up in a disagreement over definitions but I still don't see why there cannot be a link between the two (even in the light of your highlighted words) other than your defining them this way. This is not something all philosophers (or even Craig and Carroll for that matter) would agree with.

This is very refined philosophy and thus not easy to grasp in its fullness for most philosophers. Philosophers with theological background, e.g. WLC are likely to be cognitively blind to this.

Understanding the limits of the empirical and the transcendental (theistic) is very critical to this issue.
Just to give you a clue;
Scientific empiricism is subjected to (1) the Scientific Framework and its assumptions and are based fundamentally on and limited to observations.
Theoretical Science is based on extrapolation from accepted Scientific theories which are based on 1.

Theistic transcendental doctrines are based on faith. The transcendental cause, i.e. God is claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and Omni-whatever and other supernatural properties. This sort of transcendental qualities cannot have any link to the sensible. This is one reason why is impossible for the "transcendental" to be compatible with the empirical.

We make sense of value through our senses but at the same time we can't prove a value using the scientific method. As such, I don't think value can be considered empirical as the scientific method is the best tool for making sense of empirical data. Yet, everybody perceives and uses value to bolster any intellectual framework for making sense of the world. To me, this can only be direct experience with the transcendental or illusion.

In terms of value, we have the following;
1. Value on empirical objects
2. Value on the empirical related abstracts
3. Value on transcendental objects or illusions.
Value is subjective impulse which can be directed at empirical or transcendental things.
Value itself is not transcendental.

But in the context of talking about the explanation of the Universe we are forced to speak of the transcendental whether the explanation is God or something else. We are dealing with an explanation outside of the parameters of everything we could possibly call empirical. Inevitably, we are forced to mix our apples and oranges here or cling to absurdities like the universe being self-caused.

Science do not force itself to speak of the transcendental. Science resort to process observation within the rules and processes of the  Scientific Framework.
It is only theists who force to speak of the 'transcendental' due to some psychological impulses.
We don't have to end up with 'the universe is self-caused'.
There are alternative philosophies other than 'self-caused' or 'first transcendental cause.'

Keep in mind that Carroll pressed his own reasons for why the world we see shows God unlikely (note the part at 1:35:00 during the QA when he criticizes Georges Lemaître for his belief that science and religion can't mix). My point is that if Craig is guilty of equivocation in his argument then by consequence so is Carroll and any other atheistic proof to show God is unlikely for the same reason. They are making transcendental conclusions from empirical premises.

But note that Craig is not posing God as a scientific hypothesis but as a rational conclusion derived from a philosophical argument. Philosophy can make sense of the entire spectrum of knowledge including both the transcendental and the empirical. Therefore, it is not a problem at all that Craig (or Carroll for that matter) used science as a part of their philosophical arguments for and against God. This is not the same as believing in God on faith but rather following an argument to it's logical conclusion.

When one equivocate and conflate as in this sense, it is already bad logic, as such there is no deductive logical conclusion to it.
In deductive logic, if one start with the empirical, then one should follow through with empirical all the way.
If one start with the transcendental, then it should be transcendental all the way.

You stated, 'Carroll pressed his own reasons for why the world we see shows God unlikely.' Note 'see' means observable, thus Carroll is confining his statement to the empirical and he said it shows God is unlikely ( to be proven scientifically-empirically). I would say it is impossible to start with because it is mixing 'apples and oranges'.

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

Do you know what equivocating is? An argument commits the fallacy of equivocation when it uses the same word in two different ways. For example, "All murders are inhuman, therefore no murder is human" equivocates because "inhuman" is used as "not human-like" and then "not a human." Given that, I don't see how Dr. Craig conflates any definitions in this argument. What word is he using in different ways?

No one is saying that empirical evidence proves or can prove that transcendent entities exist, not even in the nonbinding way science uses it. Rather, as the argument shows, empirical evidence can give us reason to believe that a transcendent being exists. Based on his argument, given that the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. There is no problem with deducing a transcendent cause from logical necessity, since the universe could not have created itself. In fact, your objection was featured in a video Dr. Craig did of really bad objections to the KCA. I suggest you go look at it.

[rjonesx]

Theistic transcendental doctrines are based on faith. The transcendental cause, i.e. God is claimed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and Omni-whatever and other supernatural properties. This sort of transcendental qualities cannot have any link to the sensible. This is one reason why is impossible for the "transcendental" to be compatible with the empirical.

I think you misunderstand WLC's use of transcendent cause here. The omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. that you describe is not what he is getting at in this particular argument. On the contrary, his use of transcendent comes from a simple logical formula based on the statement "began to exist".

If something begins to exist, it follows that prior to that existence it did not exist. This seems obvious, but what it does is mean that if something prior to it did exist, that thing must not be the same as that which began to exist. Subsequently, if the universe began to exist and if something existed prior to it or caused it (a different question), then it must not have the properties of the universe. It cannot be material, it cannot be space, it cannot be time, it cannot be energy, it cannot be laws of physics (hence WLC's description of Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, etc.)

Secondly, I think you misunderstanding a bit. I think most of us would agree here that observational, empirical evidence is more suited for creating certainty than reason alone. I certainly think so. So why is it inappropriate to use a higher degree of certain knowledge (empirical) to justify a premise in a philosophical syllogism, as long as you hold that it merely draws a philosophical conclusion (albeit a stronger one did it not have this additional verification of its premise)?

In fact, WLC is quite clear in making these claims, stating that his intent is to show how scientific evidence lends credibility to premises within philosophical arguments. He does not equate his conclusions to scientific conclusions - in a sense making a claim to authority which it does not have.

I think a bigger question for WLC to answer is simply whether or not it is reasonable to say that something that begins to exist must have ANY cause. Carroll implied, as do many, that nothing truly begins to exist empirically, and that the only example we have of anything potentially coming into existence ex nihilo is the Universe itself. There is no empirical evidence that things beginning to exist have causes.

[Prismatic]

Do you know what equivocating is? An argument commits the fallacy of equivocation when it uses the same word in two different ways. For example, "All murders are inhuman, therefore no murder is human" equivocates because "inhuman" is used as "not human-like" and then "not a human." Given that, I don't see how Dr. Craig conflates any definitions in this argument. What word is he using in different ways?

Do you really know what equivocating is???.
Are you sure the fallacy of equivocation is only applicable to 'word' alone?
Equivocation can apply to a word, a phrase, collective term, etc.
There is a family of fallacies within the equivocation category.
In the above case, WLC has used empirical Science in the middle premise ambiguously in the empirical and transcendental sense.

No one is saying that empirical evidence proves or can prove that transcendent entities exist, not even in the nonbinding way science uses it. Rather, as the argument shows, empirical evidence can give us reason to believe that a transcendent being exists. Based on his argument, given that the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. There is no problem with deducing a transcendent cause from logical necessity, since the universe could not have created itself. In fact, your objection was featured in a video Dr. Craig did of really bad objections to the KCA. I suggest you go look at it.

The conclusion do not follow as I had shown above.
As I said, WLC did not define the term 'transcendental' with theistic significance.
Transcendental [theistic] is non-empirical and has the quality of perfection.
In the first place the empirical evidence is disputable, but this is not critical.
What is critical is empirical evidence cannot give you any reason to believe non-empirical perfection exist.
Perfection and imperfection just don't click.

That the universe could not have created itself is irrelevant.
There are alternative philosophical explanations where we don't have to bother with whether the universe has a first cause or not, or the universe could not have created itself.
This require a separate argument.

Link to the video.
I am confident it impossible for god to be real in any way, just as it impossible for perfection to exist in the real world.

[Prismatic]

I think a bigger question for WLC to answer is simply whether or not it is reasonable to say that something that begins to exist must have ANY cause. Carroll implied, as do many, that nothing truly begins to exist empirically, and that the only example we have of anything potentially coming into existence ex nihilo is the Universe itself. There is no empirical evidence that things beginning to exist have causes.

Noted your points.

My OP is titled 'A Meta-Analysis.'
I am looking beyond WLC's argument and claim that his argument is a non-starter.

If it can ever have a valid start, then we can argue about 'whether something that begin to exist must have any cause' i.e. a transcendental cause of theistic significance.
In this case we need to be precise what WLC meant by 'a transcendental cause of theistic significance' which inevitably mean 'first cause' and 'God.'

[T-Herbert Jeffrey]

Do you really know what equivocating is???.
Are you sure the fallacy of equivocation is only applicable to 'word' alone?
Equivocation can apply to a word, a phrase, collective term, etc.
There is a family of fallacies within the equivocation category.
In the above case, WLC has used empirical Science in the middle premise ambiguously in the empirical and transcendental sense.

I used the generic version of the fallacy of equivocation because I literally have no idea what you are saying he equivocated. He used the BGV theorem to SUPPORT the premise to make it logical to believe. The evidence itself has no significance to the conclusion by itself. That's why he uses the first premise. But you seem to totally neglect the philosophical arguments against the enternality of the universe. Dr. Craig doesn't believe the second premise just because of BGV though. Do I need to explain Hilbert's Hotel to you? What about the fact that actual infinites cannot exist in reality?

The conclusion do not follow as I had shown above.
As I said, WLC did not define the term 'transcendental' with theistic significance.
Transcendental [theistic] is non-empirical and has the quality of perfection.
In the first place the empirical evidence is disputable, but this is not critical.
What is critical is empirical evidence cannot give you any reason to believe non-empirical perfection exist.
Perfection and imperfection just don't click.

That the universe could not have created itself is irrelevant.
There are alternative philosophical explanations where we don't have to bother with whether the universe has a first cause or not, or the universe could not have created itself.
This require a separate argument.

Link to the video.
I am confident it impossible for god to be real in any way, just as it impossible for perfection to exist in the real world.

The conclusion does follow. As the other user said, the KCA does not have to have theistic significance necessarily. There are other arguments to narrow down this being's qualities. Nonetheless, something would have to cause the universe to come into existence. You merely just assert that people cannot have reason to believe from empirical evidence. So you hold that God cannot exist? You merely just assert that too.
Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s

God bless

[Prismatic]

Do you really know what equivocating is???.
Are you sure the fallacy of equivocation is only applicable to 'word' alone?
Equivocation can apply to a word, a phrase, collective term, etc.
There is a family of fallacies within the equivocation category.
In the above case, WLC has used empirical Science in the middle premise ambiguously in the empirical and transcendental sense.

I used the generic version of the fallacy of equivocation because I literally have no idea what you are saying he equivocated. He used the BGV theorem to SUPPORT the premise to make it logical to believe. The evidence itself has no significance to the conclusion by itself. That's why he uses the first premise. But you seem to totally neglect the philosophical arguments against the enternality of the universe. Dr. Craig doesn't believe the second premise just because of BGV though. Do I need to explain Hilbert's Hotel to you? What about the fact that actual infinites cannot exist in reality?

The generic element of equivocation is 'ambiquity,' not so much the word, phrase, sense or context.
I understand WLC qualified he is not debating God exists or not.
His point was on the plausibility with a provision for uncertainty.
But in this proposed theme, his term transcendental cause is linked with philosophical conclusion that has theistic significance.

I understand the empirical evidence in P2 support the conclusion but only if the syllogism is set up validly.
What I am contending is, the argument is syllogistically wrong (a syllogistic fallacy).
As I have shown above, WLC should not introduced the 'transcendental' word.

The 'transcendental' set just cannot be mixed with the 'empirical' set.
The 'transcendental' set belong to the 'illusion' set.
Thus arguments* about infinities and eternality will only reinforce the transcendental as an illusion.
* I am positive on this and it has to be debated with those who not agree.

So what I am saying is, WLC's argument is a non-starter.

The conclusion do not follow as I had shown above.
As I said, WLC did not define the term 'transcendental' with theistic significance.
Transcendental [theistic] is non-empirical and has the quality of perfection.
In the first place the empirical evidence is disputable, but this is not critical.
What is critical is empirical evidence cannot give you any reason to believe non-empirical perfection exist.
Perfection and imperfection just don't click.

That the universe could not have created itself is irrelevant.
There are alternative philosophical explanations where we don't have to bother with whether the universe has a first cause or not, or the universe could not have created itself.
This require a separate argument.

Link to the video.
I am confident it impossible for god to be real in any way, just as it impossible for perfection to exist in the real world.

T-Herbert Jeffrey:
The conclusion does follow. As the other user said, the KCA does not have to have theistic significance necessarily. There are other arguments to narrow down this being's qualities. Nonetheless, something would have to cause the universe to come into existence. You merely just assert that people cannot have reason to believe from empirical evidence. So you hold that God cannot exist? You merely just assert that too.
Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s

Note in this context, WLC modified KCA implied theistic significance when he introduced the word 'transcendental' and in the debate the concept of theism is regularly brought up by both parties.
If WLC did not mention 'transcendental,' the default would be an empirical cause (in the context of Scientific Cosmology)

Note (repeat);
That the universe could not have created itself is irrelevant.
There are alternative philosophical explanations where we don't have to bother with whether the universe has a first cause or not, or the universe could not have created itself.
This require a separate argument.

I asserted the 'transcendental' to 'empirical' is like 'oil is to water' or 'circle is to square'.
In addition, the transcendental is an illusion.

I hold that God cannot exists in the real world.
The definition of God exclude itself from empirical verification.
A deistic God can exists logically, but that is only in mind, i.e. a thought-object just like Santa.

[Prismatic]

The conclusion does follow. As the other user said, the KCA does not have to have theistic significance necessarily. There are other arguments to narrow down this being's qualities. Nonetheless, something would have to cause the universe to come into existence. You merely just assert that people cannot have reason to believe from empirical evidence. So you hold that God cannot exist? You merely just assert that too.
Here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtfVds8Kn4s

The video is 58 minutes.
At which time in the video did he present the objection relevant to mine?

[maximus]

prismatic,

I don't think you're getting a whole lot out of saying one claim is 'empirical' and the other is 'non-empirical'. Who says those kinds of conclusions don't mix.

What about
A. A color is a property determined by wavelengths.
B. There are wavelengths.
C. Therefore there are colors.

That first premise is a definitional - or metaphysical, if you like - claim. But it combines synthetically to imply a truth about the world.

It actually reminds me of the way some people argue for universals. They say 'This table is red' and 'This fire engine is red', Therefore there is a property known as 'red'. Of course, that's a nonempricial conclusion that follows from empirical premises. So I think the idea that conclusions and premises all need to be of one type just isn't true.