Here you establish your self as an authority. I can tell you my experience in chemistry while young . I wanted work with PhD, so I could absorb wisdom as a sponge, after one year working with physical chemists PhD I found myself disappointed by challenging their chemistry knowledge. My conclusion was PhD are specialized in one corner and very few had the broad understanding . I don't know you but I would not be surprised you are specialist in one corner like those that I had worked That is for you waving your flag
Firstly I could have phrased it as "a decade of university later" or "having got myself a university physics and maths education" or many alternative ways. The point isn't "I'm an authority, what I say is right" but rather there is a great deal to learn about what we currently understand (or think we understand) about the universe and, as I complemented him on, the fact he's already thinking about such things at that age is a very good thing, it just needs to be channelled somewhat. Einstein said "Imagination is more important than knowledge" but personally I'd clarify that to "Knowledge without imagination is blind and imagination without knowledge is directionless".
Which leads me on to my second point, namely your comment about PhDs working themselves into a corner. I completely and utterly
agree. I work in the private research sector and I do the interviews for the team I'm on/in. All applications must have a PhD and we find that only about 1 in 20 have any
understanding of mathematics and rigorous methodologies, the other 19 just repeat results they have remembered, failing to see how to develop new approaches to new problems or modifying their 'tools' to aid them. I've interviewed dozens of people in the last 18 months and only 4 have gotten past the first round (of 3 rounds!). My boss has to keep reminding me to "perk up" when doing interviews because it can become so teeth grindingly, door frame chewingly awful to see someone with a degree, masters, PhD, 2 post docs and 5 years of academic lecturing crash and burn.
Of course I'm not perfect but I have the job I do not because I could bang out papers left, right and centre during my PhD but rather I can quickly develop a broad grasp of a wide range of topics and make use of them in novel ways. I did a 3.5 year PhD and I have been in my current job for 3 years. I've learnt several times as much maths in my job than I did in my PhD. Not always to the same depth but real world problems often require innovation, not specialisation.
Please describe why is the argument flawed
God (or the creator or first cause) is an exception to the rules set up by the argument. If we allow the notion of there being an 'uncaused causer' or something as eternal, so as to not need a cause, then why should we decide such a thing is a deity? Why not let the universe be eternal (or the larger universe our particular space-time could be contained within, given we know our region of space-time is of finite age ala the big bang)? Furthermore there are self consistent notions of self creation, in that the universe can be its own cause. There's a paper on ArXiv which gives such an example, I can find it if you wish.
The general framework of the argument comes down to "Everything
must fall into this category, which now needs an explanation..... now I define something
outside of that category which explains said category and which doesn't need an explanation". Creating a set of rules and then declaring a singular exception to it, which just happens to be the thing you're trying to justify, is a logical fallacy called 'special pleading'.
If you seriously think the Kallam cosmological argument holds water then I'd suggest you take a leaf out of your criticisms of PhDs and broaden your horizons a bit.
Again flawed who said ? Do you really know how the universe started ?
I guess you failed to understand my point. I was addressing the theistic argument that it is a logical necessity that an intelligent agent created the universe. Given there are alternative explanations which are not precluded by logic it is therefore a false conclusion. In a more specific way if A explains X but then so does B explain X it is false to say "X therefore A". If two or more possible explanations exist and are viable then neither one is
necessarily true. At least not given the knowledge to hand. Could a deity have created the universe? Sure. Could the universe have been self creating? Yes. Therefore a deity is not
necessarily required to explain existence. It might well be the true reason but this is now the difference between "Logically viable" and "Phenomenologically sound".
Beside In Genesis does not talk about the whole universe . It talks about the earth and its atmospheric environment
Seriously? You believe in Genesis? Please don't say
literally! There's 2 accounts of creation in Genesis, contradicting one another and both contradicting science. Genesis talks about the order of creation for Earth, Sun, light, plants, animals etc, pretty much ALL contradictory to science.
This is a standard problem with the Bible. The only way you can believe in Genesis and be consistent with reality is to view it as allegory, such as the apple from the tree in Eden being a metaphor for knowledge and perhaps technology.
Doctor. That is you view and your view , and you cannot disprove those people that believe in God
You want to have personal faith, knock yourself out. Want to present any of the major religions, including Christianity, as bang on accurate, you're having a laugh I hope. And I stand by what I said, given the complete lack of any objective evidence for the existence of a deity or deities the only rational position is disbelief, ie "I do not accept the claims of theists". And given I do not put much stock in your logic processing abilities I'll again clarify that this is not the same as saying "Theists are wrong". If someone flips a coin and without looking at it declares "It is heads!" I would reply "I do not believe you", which is different from saying "No, it is tails", as I'd say "I do not believe you" if their friend declared "It is tails!". Until such time as evidence proportional to the claim is presented the only rational position is
disbelief. In that regard I do not believe in the Christian (or any other) god, though I cannot prove your faith wrong. On the other hand Genesis
is wrong, demonstrably, repeatedly and
extremely wrong. And if you do not see that I think your ability to evaluate the scientific and research capabilities of PhDs is called into extreme question since you would have to be unfamiliar with the basic scientific method and
reality.