Well done.Kalām's, like all strands of the Cosmological Argument, is deeply and quite obviously flawed, and in multiple, fundamental, ways. It carries no more weight than Pascal's Wager (i.e. none at all). If you want a discussion, head over to the Proofs of God thread and argue for Kalām's Cosmological Argument.
I already made a thread arguing against Kalam
Exactly. The only time proof would be possible is via divine revelation. Even then that's only proof to those who see it.
The real flaw in my argument, which you probably grasped but failed to articulate, is that I'm assuming that morality is objective, rather than subjective; it's in the section leading from "then you should not do it" to "if you do not do it", in that if you follow the prescribed suggestion that the object in question is immoral, then you are making your own (subjective) moral judgement on it, but you are also free to reject that and do what would be considered "moral" and avoid the immoral object; so, in the case of "if you do not do it", there is nothing to stop you from doing it but your own construct of morality in the belief that this object is immoral.
I see
