Andrew Loke's version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA): 1. If something (e.g. x) begins uncaused, then some other particular things (e.g, y) which begin/could begin to exist around us would also begin uncaused; because(1.1) if x begins uncaused, this means that there would not be any causally antecedent condition which make it the case that only x rather than y begin uncaused,(1.2) the properties of x and the properties of y which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist, and(1.3) the circumstance is compatible with the beginning of y. => there would be no difference between x and y where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned2. It is not the case that y begins uncaused (e.g. we don't experience a sudden increasing in strength of electric field begin uncaused and killing us)3. Therefore, it is not the case that something begins uncaused. (MT, deductive)4. Therefore, whatever begins to exist is dependent on cause(s) to make it the case that it is (say) x rather than y that begins to exist (Causal Principle).5. There exists a series of causes-and-effects and changes (=events). (e.g. I came from my parents; they came from their parents...)6. The series either has an infinite regress that avoids a First Cause, or its members are joined together like a closed loop that avoids a First Cause, or its members are not so joined together and the series has a First Cause.7. It is not the case that the series has an infinite regress. on the Causal Principle).8. It is not the case that its members are joined together like a closed loop. (There are multiple arguments for premises 7 and 8, such as the argument from the viciousness of dependence regress, which is based9. Therefore, the series has a First Cause.10. Since the First Cause is the first, it is uncaused. 11. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause (Causal Principle), the First Cause is beginningless.12. Since every change is an event that has a beginning as something/part of a thing gains or loses a property, the beginningless First Cause is not a change/event; it is (initially) changeless. ('Initial' refers to the first in the series of states ordered causally, not first..- the series of changes/events/temporal series).13. In order to cause the first effect/ change/event (Big Bang or whatever) from an initially changeless state, the First Cause must have:13.1. The capacity to be the originator of the event in a way that is un-determined by prior event, since the First Cause is the first;13.2. The capacity to prevent itself from changing, for otherwise the First Cause would not have been initially changeless and existing beginninglessly without the event/change;13.1 and 13.2 jointly imply that the First Cause has libertarian freedom (=> Personal Creator).

Andrew Loke's version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA): 1. If something (e.g. x) begins uncaused, then some other particular things (e.g, y) which begin/could begin to exist around us would also begin uncaused; because ... (1.1) if x begins uncaused, this means that there would not be any causally antecedent condition which make it the case that only x rather than y begin uncaused, ... (1.2) the properties of x and the properties of y which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist, and ... (1.3) the circumstance is compatible with the beginning of y. => there would be no difference between x and y where beginning to exist uncaused is concerned ... 2. It is not the case that y begins uncaused (e.g. we don't experience a sudden increasing in strength of electric field begin uncaused and killing us) ... 3. Therefore, it is not the case that something begins uncaused. (MT, deductive) ... 4. Therefore, whatever begins to exist is dependent on cause(s) to make it the case that it is (say) x rather than y that begins to exist (Causal Principle). ... 5. There exists a series of causes-and-effects and changes (=events). (e.g. I came from my parents; they came from their parents...) ... 6. The series either has an infinite regress that avoids a First Cause, or its members are joined together like a closed loop that avoids a First Cause, or its members are not so joined together and the series has a First Cause. ... 7. It is not the case that the series has an infinite regress. on the Causal Principle). ... 8. It is not the case that its members are joined together like a closed loop. (There are multiple arguments for premises 7 and 8, such as the argument from the viciousness of dependence regress, which is based ... 9. Therefore, the series has a First Cause. ... 10. Since the First Cause is the first, it is uncaused. 11. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause (Causal Principle), the First Cause is beginningless. ... 12. Since every change is an event that has a beginning as something/part of a thing gains or loses a property, the beginningless First Cause is not a change/event; it is (initially) changeless. ('Initial' refers to the first in the series of states ordered causally, not first.. ... - the series of changes/events/temporal series). ... 13. In order to cause the first effect/ change/event (Big Bang or whatever) from an initially changeless state, the First Cause must have: ... 13.1. The capacity to be the originator of the event in a way that is un-determined by prior event, since the First Cause is the first; ... 13.2. The capacity to prevent itself from changing, for otherwise the First Cause would not have been initially changeless and existing beginninglessly without the event/change; ... 13.1 and 13.2 jointly imply that the First Cause has libertarian freedom (=> Personal Creator).