The Instigator
Beethoven
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

God is not real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 595 times Debate No: 71263
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Beethoven

Pro

Hello.
God is a mythical and superstitious being created by primitive humans to explain natural phenomenon. There is no logical basis for the existence of a God. If there truly was a creator of the cosmos who is outside space and time then there had to be a creator for the creator, if your argument is that God is eternal and has no beginning our end, may I ask how is it that you know this about a being that has no measurable evidence at all? If you only believe or have faith that there is a creator of your thinking then you can just leave it at that, pure belief, nothing else. If you are an academic who is here to present arguments as to why there has to be a god you are welcome to give arguments

P.S This is not about a god of any religion but a supernatural being who many believe has created the universe. And please do not bring morality into this. This is another matter entirely.
1Credo

Con

Acceptance

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion!

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof will be shared in this debate, with my opponent defending his claim that "God is not real" and myself defending the claim that God exists (God is real). As the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, both parties in the debate will be responsible for presenting arguments and evidence in favor of their respective positions. At the end of the debate, the side with the more convincing argument will win.

Rebuttal

"God is a mythical and superstitious being created by primitive humans to explain natural phenomenon."

This is merely an unjustified assertion. You've claimed that God is "mythical and superstitious" without providing the slightest hint of reasoning for thinking this is the case. I can just as easily respond by saying "God is not a mythical and superstitious being".

"There is no logical basis for the existence of a God."

Are you making the claim that God is logically incoherent? If so, I'd love to hear some justification, as atheists have tried and failed for over a thousand years to come up with an argument to support such a claim. Following my rebuttal, I will provide a logical argument which supports the proposition "God exists".

"If there truly was a creator of the cosmos who is outside space and time then there had to be a creator for the creator, if your argument is that God is eternal and has no beginning our end, may I ask how is it that you know this about a being that has no measurable evidence at all?"

This is a common misconception. If God exists, then it's evident that He must be transcendent (He must exist outside of space and time in order that He be the creator of space and time). But an entity that exists outside of time needs no beginning (as far as I can see; I invite my opponent to share his thoughts) whereas an entity that exists within time (i.e. the universe) requires a beginning. So, there is no need for a "creator for the creator" as my opponent asserts.

As for how I "know" that God has no beginning, I'd say this conclusion can be easily arrived at through a relatively simple process of deduction. As I previously stated, an entity that creates space and time can't possibly exist within space and time. I can conclude from this that God, if He exists, must exist outside of time (and thus have no beginning).

"If you only believe or have faith that there is a creator of your thinking then you can just leave it at that, pure belief, nothing else. If you are an academic who is here to present arguments as to why there has to be a god you are welcome to give arguments."

A logical argument will be provided following my rebuttal.

"And please do not bring morality into this. This is another matter entirely."

Out of respect for your request, I will not present the moral argument in favor of God's existence. However, it should be noted that by no means is morality "another matter entirely". Morality is by its very nature intertwined with the existence (or nonexistence) of God. I'd be happy to discuss this topic further if requested.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

In order to provide evidence in favor of the position that "God exists", I will present the Kalam Cosmological Argument as given by Dr. William Lane Craig. This argument is a deductive logical argument; this means that in order to reject the conclusion (God exists), one must reject at least one of the argument's premises. If both premises are more likely true than false, then it follows logically and necessarily that God exists.

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Defense of P1:I will not spend much time on premise one, as it is fairly self-explanatory and relatively uncontroversial. Simply put, something cannot come from nothing. This is supported by reason as well as by experience. No one has ever witnessed a material object (say, a tree) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. The idea itself is absurd, as everything within the natural world has a cause for its existence.
Defense of P2:There is both philosophical and empirical evidence that verify premise two. In order for this premise to be false, one must assert that the universe is eternal. This suggestion contradicts both science and reason. Let us start with the philosophical evidence for premise two. Reason alone can show us that the idea of an eternal past (with an infinite number of past events) is impossible. The absurdity of infinity is shown in this example:
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract an infinite amount of coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
I begin with an infinite amount of coins. I subtract three coins from my original count. How many coins do I have left? (Answer = an infinite amount of coins)
In both cases, I subtracted the same exact number of coins from my original count, yet I arrived at contradicting answers. This, along with several other examples (i.e. Hilbert's Hotel) go to show that infinity does not exist in reality.
Now, let us take a look at the empirical evidence supporting this premise. Aside from the obvious Big-Bang model of cosmology, which estimates that the universe came into being from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion (as our universe is) cannot be eternal.

Now, just what sort of viable candidates are there for a "cause" of the universe? It seems to me that there are two (if my opponent has any suggestions, I invite him to bring them forward): an abstract object (a number, shape, etc.) or an unembodied mind (God). We can then ask ourselves, "What sorts of qualities must a 'cause' of the universe have?" It seems to me that the cause of the universe must be transcendent (this entity must exist outside of space and time), immaterial (this entity cannot have a physical substance as it exists outside of space), beginningless (in order that this entity could have created the universe without an infinite regress), and extremely powerful (after all, it must take some degree of power to bring about a universe). But, clearly, abstract objects don't stand in causal relations (the number 3 can't cause anything). So, we are left with only one viable candidate for the cause of our universe: God.

Due to character limitations, I only have room to present one argument in favor of God's existence. Upon my opponent's request, I'd be happy to provide additional arguments in a later round.

Summary

In order to win this debate, my opponent must (1) refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument by showing at least one of its premises to be false and (2) provide at least one sound argument in support of his own claim that "God is not real". If my opponent fails to accomplish both (1) and (2), then it seems to me that we can reasonably conclude that God exists.

Thank you.

Sources

http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Beethoven

Pro

Thank you for your arguements and respecting my request. As this is my first debate, forgive me for not knowing the formalities to be given during a debate.

Rebuttal for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

"1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Yes, I agree, but you do not specify that a cause HAS to be immaterialistic, I could just as easily say that everything physical that exists must have a physical cause and that the universe is physical, therefore it must have a physical cause (i.e. not God). Also the idea that you can have God create a universe thing ex-nihilo by pure thought when there is no time to think and that particular being is "timeless" is an excuse to evade scientific reasoning.

"2) The universe began to exist."
When and how did universe begin to exist? We still do not know that the universe had a beginning as the big bang theory describes it for fact. My opponent uses the big bang theory as gospel that the universe had a beginning at some point (called the singularity), but it is not so simple as it seems. We know from General Relativity and experimental findings that the universe did for certain expand from the plank second since the beginning of time. What happened before that is pure mathematical speculation based on the assumption that General Relativity holds before the plank time. I shall further discuss this in my arguement as to why a God is not needed for the universe to exist.
Also the defense of this arguement bothers me, you say infinites cannot exist because it brings contradictions, like


infinity-infinity=infinity, and
infinity-3=infinity.

I do not see any contradiction at all, the reason why you see that there is a contradicition is because, you are assuming that infinity is a finite number. Sure, if I replaced the infinities in that "equation" with a finite number and got the results mentioned above, I would say that it is contradictory.But with infinity, it is not at all contradictory.
Also, you claim that a "being" with infinite knowledge and infinite power somehow "created" the universe, aren't you contradicting your own assertion that infinites do not exist?
My arguement as to why a God is not needed for the universe to exist.


My arguement is based on mordern findings in theoritical physics and mathematics.

If one assumes that General Relativity holds before the plank time of the expansion of space-time,we can ask the following question:

What happened before the Big Bang?

The answer is simple and it is general relativity that gives the answer.
There was nothing, before the big bang, and it does not in any way give room for a God to have used a spell to create the universe.
That is just forced conclusions drawn to fit one's wishful thinking. It does however say that space and time might have expanded from a singularity. Then quantum mechanics takes over to answer the question as to how matter came into play. There are however somethings that one must understand first:


1) Empty space-time (or vacuum) has energy.
2) According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, out of fluctuations in that energy, matter and its counter part anti-matter can be created spontaneously for small periods of time.



If, however those particles are given a plank time together then they will collide and eliminate each other. But, if there was less time than that (such as the time before the plank second of the universe where only space and time were expanding) and that one of one of those particles of escaped the collision with its counter part (such as what happens in the event horizons of black holes) then you could have the creation of matter from "nothing". This of course has not been proven like God, but at least it has a sound mathematical basis.

If one were to assume that general relativity does not hold before the plank time, then that would mean that a singularity might not have existed, and there would be no "point" of creation, eliminating the need for a god, the energy of space and time would have given rise .
There are of course other theories like the multiverse theory that says that our universe is one of many universes in a vast multiverse that collide occasionaly with each other giving rise to the apparent "illusion" of a creation or big bang.

Thus to win this debate my opponent must disprove all these theories (which have a strong basis mathematically) and either accept that the universe could have had a natural beginning or replace them with his own theory given the current data that we have from years of experiments and somehow incorporate God into that theory and make sense of the origins of the universe.

Sources:
Debunking the Kalam:

https://www.youtube.com...

Quantum Fluctuations:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Plank scales:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

General Relativity notes:

http://arxiv.org...

Multiverse Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum mechanics(preliminary course):

https://www.youtube.com...

Thanks! And good luck.


1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

In the opening round, I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument as evidence for God’s existence. I will now address my opponent’s response to this argument.

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.

C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

“Yes I agree but you do not specify that a cause HAS to be immaterialistic I could just as easily say that everything physical that exists must have a physical cause and that the universe is physical therefore it must have a physical cause (i.e. not God)”

As I did indeed specify in the opening round, the cause of the universe must be immaterial. The Big Bang brought about space and time. Without space, there can be no material entities; there can be nothing physical at all. So, the cause of the universe must have been immaterial. The idea of a physical entity bringing about “physicalness” itself would be equivalent to a newborn giving birth to itself; the idea is absurd.

“When and how did universe begin to exist?”

The universe began to exist about 13.8 billion years ago. The universe came about by means of the Big Bang.

“We still do not know that the universe had a beginning as the big bang theory describes it for fact”

We don’t “know” this in the same sense that we don’t know whether the theory of evolution is true. But, as rationally thinking individuals, I hope you’d agree that we’re obligated to follow the evidence where it leads. Moreover, I pointed out the absurdity of an eternal universe in the opening round. This would entail an infinite number of past events, but as we know, infinity is merely an idea and cannot coherently exist in reality. So, I’d say it’s as clear as night and day that the universe did have a beginning.

you are assuming that infinity is a finite number"

I’m not at all suggesting that infinity is a finite number. Infinity, by its very nature, is not a finite number. What I’m saying is that if it were the case that infinity existed in reality, contradictions (like the one above) would be present. Another example of the absurdity of an infinity in reality would be Hilbert’s Hotel: https://www.youtube.com...

"you claim that a being with infinite knowledge and infinite power somehow created the universe"

I haven’t at any time said that a “being with infinite knowledge and infinite power somehow created the universe”. At several points in this debate, you’ve attempted to misconstrue my words in order to give yourself an easier time at arguing against them. I haven’t contradicted myself because I didn’t suggest that God has infinite properties, so out of respect for the discussion please do not suggest that I have.

Rebuttal to my Opponent’s Arguments

“There was nothing before the big bang”

I’d like to note the concession of the truth of the second premise in the Kalam Cosmological argument here. My opponent has stated that there was no universe before the Big Bang, and as such the universe must have had a beginning.

“it does not in any way give room for a God to have used a spell to create the universe”

Once again, I haven’t suggested that God “used a spell to create the universe”. God, if he exists, is immaterial. So while we agree that nothing material existed before the Big Bang, there is no reason to think that nothing immaterial existed. For example, are you willing to argue that abstract objects (numbers, truth propositions, etc.) did not exist before the Big Bang?

“That is just forced conclusions drawn to fit ones wishful thinking”

I’m not sure why you assert that the conclusion of a deductive logical argument is “forced” or “wishful thinking”. In philosophy, it doesn’t do you much good to call the arguments (or their conclusions) silly names. If you wish to disagree with the argument’s conclusion that God exists, please offer some sort of reason or argument so that you might be taken more seriously. As you’ve already conceded that the universe must have had a beginning, you must either provide evidence to think that everything that begins to exist does not have a cause, or else agree with the first premise as well. If you are unable to show the first premise (which states that “everything that begins to exist has a cause”) to be false, then the conclusion “God exists” follows logically and necessarily.

“Empty space-time (or vacuum) has energy"

I wouldn’t consider energy to be “nothing”, would you? I agree that a vacuum state has energy, but this is irrelevant. We know both from (1) the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem and (2) the absurdity of infinity that space and time cannot be eternal. Your suggestion, correct me if I’m wrong, is that there can be energy without “space”. But this seems to me to be trivially false. Energy is physical, and as such it cannot exist in the absence of physical space.

“out of fluctuations in that energy matter and its counter part anti-matter can be created spontaneously”

Again, this does nothing to show how energy itself came to be. I’m really not concerned with what happened after space and time began to exist. The point, as stated in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is that space (including energy) and time did have a beginning.

“then you could have the creation of matter from nothing”

No, not from nothing. If energy exists then we’d be incorrect in asserting that there is nothing, as “nothing” is by definition the absence of “something” (i.e. energy).

“This of course has not been proved like God”

I assume this is a typo, but if not I’ll gladly take the concession that God’s existence has been “proved”.

"there would be no point of creation eliminating the need for a god”

If this is your view, then please provide some sort of evidence or argument for thinking that the universe is eternal. I can’t respond to evidence that isn’t provided.

“the multiverse theory”

The multiverse theory doesn’t eliminate the need for a causal beginning. You might say that a previous universe caused our universe, but eventually you would find yourself in an infinite regress of universes. As we have (I hope) established already, infinity cannot exist in reality. So, even if the multiverse theory holds (and you haven’t, by the way, given any reason to think it does) a cause remains necessary.

“to win this debate my opponent must disprove all these theories”

Not a single one of the theories you presented conflicts with the two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Each of your theories (which you didn’t provide any evidence for) requires a cause of the universe, and none of them provide any candidates for this cause. So, if anything, these theories serve as evidence in favor of my own position that God exists.

Summary

Recall that in order to reject the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (God exists), one must show at least one of the argument’s premises to be false. My opponent has not even attempted to show either premise to be false thus far, instead opting to argue against points I have not made.

On the other side, my opponent has presented (without evidence for thinking they’re true) several theories. The problem is that none of these theories avoid a beginning of space and time. My opponent has attempted to evade this by arguing that energy is “nothing”, but of course energy is physical and as such it is surely “something” and not “nothing”.

At this point in the debate, The Kalam Cosmological Argument remains standing. In order for my opponent to reject God’s existence, he must argue against one of the argument’s premises.

Moreover, my opponent has yet to provide any sort of argument or evidence in favor of his own position that “God is not real”. As such, this assertion remains unwarranted.

As my opponent has failed to fulfill his share of the burden of proof in this debate, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that God exists.

Thank you.

Sources

http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Beethoven

Pro

Thanks!

Rebuttal

God by my understanding is omnipotent. (Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not mean that God's Power is limitless?)

On The Big Bang Theory

My opponent has not addressed one of my key points, The Big Bang theory has two parts,

Part 1 (Before Plank Time)

The part before is based on the assumption that General Relativity is valid before the Plank Time.
If General Relativity holds, then and only then can one say that there was a singularity and a point from which the universe began. This is quite a big assumption as when one actually tests the Einstein Field Equations at the early universe, the curvature scalar (R) and the Ricci curvature Tensor (which describes how much "Curved" the manifold is compared to flat manifolds) tend toward infinity (which you say does not exist). That means that space-time would have to be infinitely curved (such as in a black hole) to a single point (a point which occupies 0 space and where time stops, which is equal to saying that the intervals between two moments become infinitely long).

Also General Relativity is not enough before plank time, at such small scales Quantum Mechanics also has to be incorporated into the equations and what happens when you mix General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, you get absurdities that are infinitely worse than when it was only General Relativity at the early universe.

Part 2 (After Plank time)

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics part ways from this point (Until we think about Black Holes.) From here the equations start working and we can predict and even see the expansion of the universe. In other words what happened before Plank Time is pure mathematical speculation.

Is the Big Bang Theory the only explanation to the origins of the Universe?
No. It is the most popular one among people.

Concerning The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I shall attempt to refute this step by step.

Premise 1

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

What exactly is "everything”?

To me "everything" means the total aggregate of all that exists. Is God included in "Everything"?
Also the word cause is also misleading. As I said everything physical that exists must have a physical cause.

As you have said it yourself, no one has seen a tree (a physical object) pop out of nothing in front of their eyes. It had to have come from a seed (another physical object). These causes are often called "temporal" causes. There is also (as you say) a non-temporal cause (like God) who you claim created the universe. More of this is explained in my breakdown of premise 2.

Premise 2

The Universe began to exist.

There is no problem with this premise, but as I again say the defense of this premise
(which you have presented) has a fallacy. You claim that infinities do not exist because they bring about contradictions. Try this experiment.

Take two rectangular, identical pieces of mirrors. Place then such that they are parallel to each other. Put an object in the middle (say a ball) then look at one mirror and tell me how images of that ball do you see?

You have to conclude that the number of objects that would be seen is infinite.

Also, William Lane Craig (The creator of The Kalam Cosmological Argument) himself makes a distinction between two types of causality – "temporal" causality, which is the physical causality we observe within the universe, and (obviously) "non-temporal" causality, which is the kind of causality that exists a priori to our universe and caused our universe to come into temporal (physical) existence. But the existence of non-temporal causality is precisely what the Kalam is trying to establish.

Thus I conclude that The Kalam Cosmological Argument has fallacies that it

1) Goes against what we have seen in reality (Mainly everything physical that begins to exist must have a physical cause). And

2) The Kalam has to assume the consequent – it has to assume, in the first premise, that non-temporal causality exists – precisely what the argument is supposed to prove.

Rebuttals against other matters



Empty space-time (or vacuum) has energy"

I wouldn’t consider energy to be “nothing”, would you?

I am not saying that energy exists outside space-time. What I am saying is that space-time itself has energy.


"there would be no point of creation eliminating the need for a god”

If this is your view, then please provide some sort of evidence or argument for thinking that the universe is eternal. I can’t respond to evidence that isn’t provided.

You have I believe misunderstood my intention in saying this, the full sentence was:


If one were to assume that general relativity does not hold before the plank time, then that would mean that a singularity might not have existed, and there would be no "point" of creation, eliminating the need for a god.

If we are to assume that General Relativity is not valid before the Plank Time, then we have no mathematical model for confirming that a singularity did indeed exist. Only after we develop a theory of Quantum Gravity will we know for sure.

“the multiverse theory”

The multiverse theory doesn’t eliminate the need for a causal beginning. You might say that a previous universe caused our universe, but eventually you would find yourself in an infinite regress of universes. As we have (I hope) established already, infinity cannot exist in reality. So, even if the multiverse theory holds (and you haven’t, by the way, given any reason to think it does) a cause remains necessary.

As of this time there is no conclusive proof that a multiverse exists, but again mathematical models do exist where many universes with many dimensions are accounted for. Experiments are being designed to test the multiverse theory but it will take a long time for conclusive proof or disproof. (But you might want to read an article to which I have given a link below.)


“to win this debate my opponent must disprove all these theories”

Not a single one of the theories you presented conflicts with the two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Each of your theories (which you didn’t provide any evidence for) requires a cause of the universe, and none of them provide any candidates for this cause. So, if anything, these theories serve as evidence in favor of my own position that God exists.

These theories do not refute the Kalam and I didn't say they would, they refute the claim that God HAD to have created the universe. Also, evidence is a tricky term. If you are talking about physical or real evidence there is almost none (for some theories), but they do have a logical and mathematical framework which sorry to say the idea of God does not. Again you are using the term cause in a completely different sense as I see it. For me a cause of the universe would have to be physical or natural. You seem to want a supernatural cause (Which I do not believe in) for the universe which I cannot give.


On the other side, my opponent has presented (without evidence for thinking they’re true) several theories. The problem is that none of these theories avoid a beginning of space and time. My opponent has attempted to evade this by arguing that energy is “nothing”, but of course energy is physical and as such it is surely “something” and not “nothing”

I have not said that energy is nothing, what I have said is that nothing (the scientificVacuum state) itself has energy. For the matter of the beginning of space-time, space-time cannot exist without matter and energy and vice-versa (evidence in the sources). As for the assertion that I have not given any evidence I would like to say, neither has my opponent, he has just given an argument (which has fallacies) and is attempting to morph the evidence of the Big Bang as an evidence for God.


Thanks!

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.hawking.org.uk...
http://home.web.cern.ch...
http://en.wikipedia.org...














1Credo

Con

Thanks, Pro

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C1: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

“What exactly is "everything”?”

If the difficulty is with the word “everything”, then “anything” can be substituted. The point here is that everything (or anything) that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

“As I said everything physical that exists must have a physical cause.”

If this were true, then we would run into an infinite regress of physical causes. As infinity does not exist in reality, we can conclude that there must have been a first cause. We can also conclude that this first cause must have itself been uncaused. This uncaused cause (God) cannot be physical because this would be the equivalent of a child giving birth to itself. A physical cause cannot bring “physicalness” into existence, because if it did then it would have to have been nonphysical, which is a contradiction. Thus, the first cause that brought about the physical universe must have been immaterial.

“Take two rectangular, identical pieces of mirrors. Place then such that they are parallel to each other. Put an object in the middle (say a ball) then look at one mirror and tell me how images of that ball do you see?”

It seems here that my opponent is using potential infinities and actual infinities synonymously. These terms are different, however, as “actual infinities” are not thought to exist in reality (infinity does not actually exist in a quantifiable way, but only in a potential sense, as in an idea). To better understand the difference between a potential infinite (which doesn’t actually exist, it is merely an idea) and an actual infinite (which is contradictory and as such does not exist in reality), please take a look at what Aristotle had to say on the subject: http://sites.middlebury.edu...

“Thus I conclude that The Kalam Cosmological Argument has fallacies that it 1) Goes against what we have seen in reality (Mainly everything physical that begins to exist must have a physical cause). 2) The Kalam has to assume the consequent – it has to assume, in the first premise, that non-temporal causality exists – precisely what the argument is supposed to prove.”

(1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not “go against” what we see in reality. Rather, it is endorsed by what we know about reality. We know, in reality, that a child cannot give birth to itself. In the very same way, the physical world cannot have been created by something physical.

(2) I’m not concerned with temporal vs non-temporal causality; the point is that there must have been an uncaused cause of the universe and that God is the best (and only) viable candidate for this first cause.

“I am not saying that energy exists outside space-time. What I am saying is that space-time itself has energy.”

Then we’re agreed that energy is not “nothing”, as my opponent originally stated.

“These theories do not refute the Kalam”

My opponent has conceded that each of the theories he has proposed, even if true, do not succeed in refuting the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

“For me a cause of the universe would have to be physical or natural. You seem to want a supernatural cause (Which I do not believe in) for the universe which I cannot give.”

It seems as if my opponent is arguing that the physical universe must have a physical cause because he does not want there to be a supernatural cause. As I’ve stated several times throughout this debate, the origin of physical matter cannot itself have been physical, as this would be contradictory in the same way that a child giving birth to itself is contradictory.

“what I have said is that nothing (the scientificVacuum state) itself has energy”

I thought we were agreed that energy wasn’t “nothing”. The vacuum state cannot be considered “nothing” as nothing is by definition the absence of something, and energy certainly is “something”.

Rebuttal to my Opponent’s Arguments

“God by my understanding is omnipotent. (Correct me if I am wrong, but does that not mean that God's Power is limitless?)”

An omnipotent entity is an entity which has the power to do anything that is logically possible. So, yes, God’s power is “limitless”, because the inability to actualize an incoherence (i.e. nothing) doesn’t seem to me to be a limit in any sense.

“My opponent has not addressed one of my key points, The Big Bang theory has two parts, Part 1 (Before Plank Time) and Part 2 (After Plank time)”

In fact, I have addressed both of these points. Neither “before plank time” nor “after plank time” avoid a necessary beginning of our universe.

Summary

At the beginning of this debate, I presented the Kalam Cosmological Argument. My opponent has failed to refute this argument. He has agreed with both premises of the argument, with his only disagreement coming from the idea that a material universe could not have had a material cause. To emphasize this point, I invite my opponent and any readers to consider the absurdity of a child giving birth to itself. This is just as incoherent as the idea of having a physical entity as a cause of physical matter itself. So, it seems to me that the Kalam Cosmological Argument has held sound and that the necessary conclusion (God exists) follows logically and inescapably. In addition to this, my opponent has conceded that none of the theories he discussed could refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Moreover, my opponent has failed to fulfill his share of the burden of proof in the lack of arguments and evidence he has brought forward in favor of his own position. I think we can reasonably conclude, then, that I have fulfilled my share of the burden of proof whereas my opponent has not. I urge readers to Vote Con!

Thank you.

Sources

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
http://sites.middlebury.edu...
http://now.tufts.edu...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Beethoven 1 year ago
Beethoven
I shall debate on other Religious gods in later times. For now it is just a Creator.
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 1 year ago
LaughItUpLydia
I believe in God. But I would not debate the existence of God, rather, I would argue the logic and history and given proof of the Christian God and that it is illogical, ignorant, and not safe to be "atheist."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
Beethoven1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ultimately won this debate on the basis of the fact that he successfully presented a cogent cosmological argument and defended it adequately. Pro's arguments were really just focused on the mechanics of the first few moments of the universe, which is very interesting (I study physics) but it did not actually refute Con's argument.
Vote Placed by The-Voice-of-Truth 1 year ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
Beethoven1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources: While Con used reliable sources, Pro used more of them, so I am giving the vote to Pro. S&G: Con had the odd grammatical error every now and then (I only counted 5, mostly in the first round), but Pro had none, so the vote goes to Pro. Arguments: Con failed to fulfill his BoP and did not refute Pro's Kalam Cosmological Argument, and Pro was able to refute Con's arguments, so the Vote goes to Pro. Conduct: Conduct was equal on both sides, so I voted a tie. Agreeance: My views were not swayed.