The Instigator
Esiar
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Fkkize
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Is The Kalam Cosmological Argument Accurate?

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 5 votes the winner is...
Fkkize
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 578 times Debate No: 69497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

Esiar

Pro

Rules:
-Go by the Christian definition of God.
-No insulting.

In the case that Con does not know what this argument is, I will explain it by qouting myself[1]:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
It has never been observed otherwise, and it is illogical to say things can begin to exist without a cause.

-The Universe has a beginning.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the expansion of the Universe show that the Universe had a beginning.

-Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
The first two premises are correct, thus this conclusion is correct.

The cause of this Universe, whatever it may be, must exist outside the boundaries set in the Universe, which include: Time, Matter, and Logic.

Therefore, the cause of the Universe is timeless (Eternal & Unchanged), matterless (Immaterial), and not bound by logic, meaning it can do things that are both logical and illogical (Omnipotent).

The cause of the Universe is: Eternal, Unchanged, Immaterial, Omnipotent, and could be Omniscient and Omnipresent (Since the cause is omnipotent, the cause can be those things as well)

The cause also must be personal, based on the rules of Cause & Effect. If something impersonal, eternal, and unchangeble is the cause of something, then the effect should also be eternal and unchangeable. This means that an Impersonal thing cannot be the cause of the Universe, because we know the Universe has a beginning, and is subject to change (A personal being with free-will does not apply to this: They can, out of their own will, spontaneously create a new effect without prior determining conditions, since they are omnipotent. If you were to say a Personal being would also apply to what I said about an impersonal cause, then a finite Universe wouldn't exist right now: Since neither a personal nor impersonal thing could cause the Universe in that case).

Something is either personal or it isn't: There is no middle ground. Since the cause of the Universe logically cannot be impersonal, the cause must logically be personal.

The eternal, unchangeable, immaterial, omnipotent cause of the Universe must be a personal being. God is defined as an eternal, unchangeble, immaterial, omnipotent, personal cause of the Universe (Not in every religion, but I am a Christian, thus I am going by the Christian definitions), and the cause of the Universe have those attributes, therefore, God exists (In other words, the requirements to be the cause of the Universe can only fit what God is).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To show that the argument is invalid, Con will have to do one of these things:

Prove that everything that begins to exist doesn't have a cause by showing an instance where something started existing (It must have a beginning) without a cause.

OR

Prove the Universe didn't have a beginning.

OR

Prove that the cause of the Universe doesn't need to exist outside the boundaries of time, matter, and logic.

OR

Prove that the cause of the Universe does not need to be a personal being.

OR

Prove that the Christian God is not defined as an eternal, immatireal (1 Timothy 1:17), unchaged (Malachi 3:6) omnipotent (Mark 10:27), personal (He gets angry and greived) cause of the Universe.
Fkkize

Con

Thank you, for instigating this debate.

In the following I will sometimes refer to the premises as Px) and the conclusion as C) for the sake of simplicity and convention.

"It has never been observed otherwise"
All we have ever observed is creatio ex materia, e.g. a table begins to exist approximately when a craftsman attaches the last leg to the rest. It is reasonable to say that the table had a beginning and a cause. However this "beginning" of everything that we see is not a coming into existence but rather a "rearranging" of already existing stuff and puting a linguistic label on it.
What we have never observed is creatio ex nihilo, being the literal creation of something out of nothing (no matter, no spacetime, no energy and so on) as entailed in the argument. The distinction is very important.

Even if I concede the entire argument [P1),P2) & C)] about the causation of the universe, attributing it to a deity is a complete non-sequitur. (Conceding the whole argument doesn't make the christian god any more likely than the muslim one or a deistic one, a pantheistic one, 214 gods or some kind of trans dimensional alien race)
In addition a timeless, spaceless and unchanging thing IS something which we have never observed, not to mention the observation of something like that causing anything.

Our laws of physics and naive intuitions like causality don't even apply to timespans shortly after the big bang so talking about causality "outside", "before" or "beyond" our universe is based on assumptions for which noone on this planet has any foundation whatsoever.
Debate Round No. 1
Esiar

Pro

I don't think that, "In addition a timeless, spaceless and unchanging thing IS something which we have never observed, not to mention the observation of something like that causing anything.", really addresses the argument, but now that I've thought about it for a little while, the Kalam argument's foundation is faulty.

As you said, the Kalam argument suggests what the cause of the Universe is doesn't fit causes we have observed. It must be logically consistent, meaning that if premise one must fit the conclusion, you would thus need to conclude that the Universe was caused in the same sense people and Tables were, meaning the cause of the Universe would be bound by time, matter, and logic. But if the cause of the Universe has those things, that means that thing has a cause as well, which also must be bound by time. But if the cause of that is bound by time, that means that thing has a cause as well, which also must be bound by time. And so on. The argument is thus broken, since there cannot be an infinite regress. That would mean there is an uncaused cause, and you could say that it is God, but to say that you would have to assume premise 1 is accurate.

One could say, "But, to say that the Universe doesn't require a cause, or has no cause, makes the Universe the uncaused cause. If something is an uncaused case, it cannot be bound by time. The Universe is bound bound by time, therefore it is not the uncaused cause therefore the Universe has a cause."

But, this is inaccurate:
The uncaused cause could also be nothing, since nothing cannot have a prior cause. If nothing caused the Universe, than the Universe would have no cause, even though it had a beginning, because nothing caused it. Thus meaning that something that begins to exist doesn't NEED a cause.

Therefore, the Kalam argument would actually prove the cause of the Universe is nothing rather than God.

But the Kalam argument is foundationally flawed, thus it cannot be used as proof that God created us or that the Universe came from nothing.

Fkkize

Con

The original claim was that the Argument is accurate which could mean "the Argument is sound" which I have shown to be wrong as admitted by pro: "the Kalam argument's foundation is faulty". In this case I would have won the debate already.

Alternatively the argument is accurate could also mean "the argument is valid" which I have only scratched on.

First of all the argument heavily pleads on the causality principle. If I now grant that this principle applies under every circumstance then that leads to an infinite regress and would thus apply to the universe AND god. The cutting of this chain of causality at the point where it reaches a deity is arbitrary and in the end defies the causality principle which it relies on so heavily.

Furthermore even if you concede the argument up to C1) (Therefore, the universe had a cause) the follow up remains a non-sequitor as I lined out earlier since "god" (the christian god in particular) is not the only option.

Thus the Kalam cosmological argument is not even valid.
Debate Round No. 2
Debate Round No. 3
Esiar

Pro

Bam. Fast reply.
Fkkize

Con

Gotta go fast!
Debate Round No. 4
Esiar

Pro

Faster Faster F-f-f-f-faster
Fkkize

Con

Ok, Im late.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by rnd 1 year ago
rnd
An incorrect and incoherent definition of omnipotence was assumed. I cannot believe this was not addressed!

"Therefore, the cause of the Universe is timeless (Eternal & Unchanged), matterless (Immaterial), and not bound by logic, meaning it can do things that are both logical and illogical (Omnipotent). "

Omnipotence means the ability to do anything that is logically valid. To claim that it means the ability to do that which is logically impossible is nonsensical.
Posted by Esiar 2 years ago
Esiar
I forgot to give the source as to where my quote is found:

[1] - http://www.debate.org...
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by NathanDuclos 2 years ago
NathanDuclos
EsiarFkkizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Im not really sure what to say, con was quick, easy to follow and and pro was needlessly word and showed some odd conclusions.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
EsiarFkkizeTied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 2 years ago
Paleophyte
EsiarFkkizeTied
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: Debate conceded by Pro.
Vote Placed by Envisage 2 years ago
Envisage
EsiarFkkizeTied
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: Concession by Pro
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
EsiarFkkizeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded the debate, but had better spelling. Pro's source was a debate, and Con had none.