This is precisely what I'm talking about. You're trying to obscure the disagreement by conceding a point that I'm not making. I wasn't simply making the point that the Kalam was valid. I was making the point that someone ignorant of logical validity, most logical fallacies, how to construct a proper statement, etc. is, in no way, qualified to make pronouncements on ANY argument.
You see, the real concession you need to make is that you cannot rightly say the Kalam has serious flaws because we have demonstrated that you do not possess the requisite capacities to render such a judgment. For Chrissake, you thought metaphysical statements were absurd, which means you're completely unaware that the major development in philosophy in the last hundred years was the realization that metaphysics was absolutely necessary. You tried to cover this up by saying I was using some old or antique definition, but I was using the modern definition! You don't even know what metaphysics is, and yet you pretend to be qualified to make pronouncements on a metaphysical argument that is currently being examined in scholarly journals.
You haven't the first clue about how to construct an argument, and when you actually try, you commit the most elementary blunder of impeaching the reasonable standards that allow you to make ANY argument, which is the sort of stereotypical blunder committed by people who haven't a clue about logic. Yet you propose to know what constitutes a good argument. Hilarious!
If you would just concede the point, the argument would be over.
LOL! Except when you accused J of bringing up intellectual in the first place, and he had to point out that was a lie. I don't think J is being as agreeable are you pretend. I think J understands that you're wrong but doesn't want to pursue it.