The Instigator
Logic-Bomb
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ssadi
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument valid?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
ssadi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 816 times Debate No: 90910
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (2)

 

Logic-Bomb

Con

The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been used extensively by William Lane Craig. Many apologists have taken to this argument as a valid excuse to believe in god. I will demonstrate that this is not the case. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is logically fallacious, and while that doesn't disprove the existence of the god it argues for, it does disprove the claim based on Kalam.

Round one will be for acceptance and definitions.
ssadi

Pro

I accept and thank the instigator for instigating this interesting debate.

Con said that the first round is for acceptance and definitions, but no definition is provided. So, I’ll do instead.


KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (KCA)


The KCA is actually consists of two parts. The first part is to show that the universe has a cause. The second part is a long discussion of what this cause might be. The conclusion that the cause of the universe is God is obtained from the second part, not from the first part.

The systematic/fully articulated version of Kalam Argument was formulated by Al-Ghazali in 11th century. In 20th century the second part of the argument was reformulated by William Lane Craig and was renamed as Kalam Cosmological Argument.[1]




1. The First Part



The first part of KCA is a deductive argument of 2 premises and 1 conclusion.



P1:
Anything that begins to exist has a cause (of its coming into existence).


P2:
The universe began to exist (i.e., the universe has a beginning).


C:
The universe has a cause.



This is the first part of KCA.




2. The Second Part



The second part is a discussion about what/who the cause in conclusion of the first part is.[1]



P1.
The universe has a cause;


P2.
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;


Therefore:


C.
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.




DEFINITIONS



Valid:
fair or reasonable; acceptable according to the law[2]


God:
the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe[3]


Universe:
all of space and time[4] and everything in it including stars, planets, galaxies, etc.[5]


Cause:
something or someone that produces an effect, result, or condition; something or someone that makes something happen or exist[6]


Uncaused:
having no antecedent cause[7]


Create:
to cause (something new) to exist;[8] to bring something into existence from nothing


Nothing:
not anything; not a thing;[9] no thing; not anything; naught[10]


Infinite:
having no limits[11]


Infinity:
the quality of having no limits or end; the quality of being infinite[12]


Deduction:
In Logic:[13]


a)
a process of reasoning in which a conclusion follows necessarily from the premises presented, so that the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true.


b)
a conclusion reached by this process.


Deductive Argument:


“A deductive argument is an argument that is intended by the arguer to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the argument's premises (assumptions) are true. This point can be expressed also by saying that, in a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide such strong support for the conclusion that, if the premises are true, then it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.”
[14]



These are some important definitions that need to be fixed. Further definitions can be provided and discussed when there appears any disagreement. However, the above definitions are not open to further disagreements once they are accepted before round 2 arguments, in order to prevent potential and unnecessary semantics.




BURDEN OF PROOF (BOP) & RFD



The resolution is a question and Con argues that the answer is no and Pro argues that the answer is yes. Since both debaters are making claims, then BOP is equally shared.



Con has to show that KCA is not valid.


Pro has to show that KCA is valid.



WARNING:
The votes that assume/state/claim that the BOP is heavier on one debater than the other are invalid and should be reported & removed.



Therefore;



1.
Points for arguments will go to debater who provides more convincing arguments as compared to his opponent’s arguments.



2.
In case both sides provide equally convincing arguments, the one who provides more convincing rebuttals to his opponent’s arguments as compared to his opponent’s rebuttals wins the points for arguments.



3.
The arguments are tied otherwise.



4.
For conduct, S&G and sources standard voting rules of DDO should be applied.




STRUCTURE



R1:
Acceptance, rules, definitions etc.


R2:
Arguments. No rebuttals.


R3:
Rebuttals to arguments in R2 only. No new arguments.


R4:
Defense of arguments against rebuttals in R3 only. No new arguments or new rebuttals.


R5:
Closing Arguments (i.e., Conclusion). No new arguments or rebuttals.



RN
stands for round N.




RULES



1. Follow the definitions provided above.


2.
Follow the debate structure above.


3.
For Voters: Follow the BOP & RFD conditions explained above, otherwise your votes will be reported as invalid.


4.
Any disagreement must be discussed under comments before anything is posted in R2. Con can directly post their arguments for round 2 if and only if they agree to all definitions, BOP conditions, structure and rules above.




I wish Con the best of luck in R2 and hope this debate will be a fruitful and enjoying one.

Debate Round No. 1
Logic-Bomb

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for defining the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I chose not to, simply because there are a few different wordings of it, and I wanted to give my opponent the opportunity to discuss the version they are familiar with. I accept this version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument entirely.

I also accept your definitions, pointing out however, that the definition you give of create will be problematic for the Kalam argument itself, as creation from nothing is not a requirement for the definition. I can create art with paint and a brush, which already exist. This point will be elaborated on in my argument.

I accept your Burden of Proof as well. I intend to demonstrate that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a valid argument, and you will demonstrate that it is a valid argument.

So, I will now begin with my opening argument:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not a valid argument, because it commits multiple logical fallacies in order to reach a conclusion that only follows by assuming the premises which are unfounded, and logically fallacious.

Part One:

P1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

a.) Equivocation fallacy:

While it may seem intuitive that we observe a cause for everything that begins to exist, the only examples we have are all of things that come into existence ex materia, that is by chemical means of rearranging atoms. We have no observable examples of things coming into existence, ex nihilo, that is, from nothing. Therefore, we cannot conclude that something beginning to exist ex nihilo, that is from nothing, would necessarily be causal in effect.

Furthermore, the closest examples we do have of observations of things coming into existence from nothing are virtual particles, which indeed do come in and out of existence without conscious cause. Atoms are made up of subatomic particles called electrons, protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are themselves made up of smaller particles, called quarks. These quarks are caused to exist by excitations in the gluon field, called "quantum fluctuations". These quarks form as a result of these quantum fluctuations. The energy level of a quantum field is unstable. It fluctuates repeatedly, and this causes changing levels of it. We can express this in a waveform for clarity, as we will see. Quarks require to be binded together in order to form neutrons and protons. The explanation of this is called "Quantum Chromodynamics". They aren't actually any colour. They are too small to reflect any colour of light wave. But it is useful for understanding how they work. In order for a particle to exist, it must be "white", or "colourless". This can be done by adding three quarks to make "white"; red, green and blue, or by pairing a quark with it's "anti colour". These quarks bind together by clearing the energy in the gluon field between them. That means they require energy to clear the vacuum of space. To understand this, we will go back to the use of waveforms. Energy fields can be seen as a waveform. The double slit experiment shows us what it looks like when two waves interact: the valleys cancel out the peaks where they meet, and two peaks create intensified points. The result is seen in light waves as stripes of light, where the cancelled portion of the waves show nothing. In water, we can see these wave patterns by ripples moving through each other, cancelling out these interactions. In quantum fields, these regions that cancel each other out form an absence of energy. This cleared energy space between quarks is called a flux tube. So we can see how and why it takes energy to clear this space and bind quarks. If we pull these two binded quarks apart, it will require more energy to clear this increased space between them. If we pull them far enough apart, the amount of energy required to clear this space becomes more than the energy required to create two new particles to bind to the original. Thus, two new particles pop into existence where none were.

This example of quantum physics shows us that existence does not require a conscious creator, but more importantly, it shows us that the equivocation of premise one is utterly false. Moreover, it shows us the most important aspect of this argument, that it actually requires more energy to clear away energy and matter than it does to form it. In other words, the state of nothingness presented by apologists like William Lane Craig, is simply not a physical reality. It would require the existence of an infinite amount of energy to have the nothing that the argument here attempts to claim. In short, absent a universe, a universe spontaneously forms. It is the lowest state of energy. Existence requires less effort than nothingness.

The expansion of spacetime is well observed, meaning it did have an origin, but no conclusion about causality can be made about something that is not able to be described as your "thing" that exists.

b.) Fallacy of composition:

The universe is not a thing, it is a set of things. What is true of the things that make up the universe does not mean they are true of the set of all things.

As an example, the human body is a set of things. It is made up of cells, which are microscopic. Because human cells are microscopic, does not mean that the set of those things, humans, are microscopic?

The universe therefore, cannot be equated to the things that compose it. Even if all things that make up the universe itself require a cause, that does not mean the universe itself does.

P2. The universe began to exist:

faulty generalization

Well our universe did indeed begin to exist in its current form, no claim can be said that this requires a definitive beginning point for whatever it came out of. Furthermore, as the laws of physics break down at the point of a singularity, due to general relativity (the short answer being that our observation of sequence of events differs relative to the frame of references in or out of this singularity), then such an event to cause this form of beginning cannot be defined by the laws of physics, nor our philosophical understanding of such a reality or existence, if it could be called as such.

Furthermore, the models of the Big Bang theory do seem to show that all of space and time have an origin. But can this be said to be supportive of the premise "the universe began to exist"? No. If time itself began, then the universe has existed for all of time. To ask what happened "before" time, is nonsensical. Before time existed, there was no time, therefore there can be no "before". Therefore, even if we were to accept the seemingly logical assumption that time began with the Big Bang, then the universe has always existed for all of time. Thus, the universe is still logically said to be eternal. This itself will also bring up major problems in your second part of the Kalam.

P3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Unsupported by the faulty premises. A conclusion that is reached from fallacious premises is logically invalid and unsound.

Defining such a cause as a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful and personal creator is another Equivocation fallacy, as we shall now see:

Part Two:

P1. The universe has a cause:

False assumption.

As I have demonstrated in the first part, this conclusion cannot be logically deduced, as the premises that lead to this are faulty and fallacious.

P2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

Non-Sequitur.

These simply do not follow.

a.) There is absolutely no reason to assume that a creator of our universe would necessarily need to be uncaused. There is a hypothesis that our universe is actually a computer simulation. If this were true, then the creator would most certainly be caused. This is actually demonstrable by the fact that we currently can run simulations of universes, and our technology is rapidly growing in artificial intelligence. So it is more than reasonable to accept that it may be possible for technology to develop intelligence that is conscious and sentient.

It could also be that our universe is created by a race from another universe that had a cause. This assumption of yours has no ground.

b.) There is no reason that it must be a personal creator. It is equally as valid that a scientific experiment from another race created our universe absent any intention to. It could be that a god simply experimented with creation as well. Nothing says this must be personal.

c.) Another unfounded assertion. A god could have a beginning and create a universe.

d.) If such a creator is changeless, then he cannot create. The act of creation is a change, and thus, violates this claim. This is a contradiction.

e.) If such a creator is immaterial, then it cannot affect the material. Even if a god exists that created the universe, a bridge between material and immaterial would still be required. This too, is a contradiction.

f.) If such a creator is timeless, then he cannot create, as this is a change in state, and that requires time. This is also a contradiction.

g.) If such a creator is spaceless, then he doesn't exist in reality. Space and time are expressions of the same form. Einstein's theory of relativity demonstrates this, and the recent discovery of gravitational waves has confirmed the last prediction made by this theory.

h.) Enormously powerful is relative. To us, an ant is small, but so is an apple. To an ant, an apple is enormous. Such descriptive words are relative to the view of the individual using it. How enormous his power must be is debatable.

C: Therefore an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful:

Equally as much a non-sequitur as a conclusion as it is a premise
ssadi

Pro

Thanks to Con!



KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (KCA)



I. THE FIRST PART




P1:
Anything that begins to exist has a cause (of its coming into existence).



We know by intuition that whatever begins to exist has a cause.



1.
In general, a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon.[1] It is observed that anything that begins to exist has a cause; the opposite is not proven yet. Since it is confirmed by repeated observations and experiments that anything that begins to exist has a cause, then it is concluded that P1 is fair and reasonable, or acceptable according to known laws of nature; hence valid.


Note that it is even possible that the laws of physics were wrong, but they are valid laws until being proven wrong.[1] Similarly, P1 is valid (there is reasonable evidence that supports it) until it is proven wrong.



2.
There has to be an available and known law or fair, acceptable and reasonable explanation that something can begin to exist without any reason in order for P1 to be invalid. The sole imaginary possibility with unknown probability is not fair and reasonable to make P1 invalid. Since we don’t have any reasonable reason to reject P1 and since it is confirmed by repeated observations and experiments that P1 is valid, then it is reasonable and fair to conclude that P1 is valid.




P2:
The universe began to exist (i.e., the universe has a beginning).



1.
It is well-known that the Big Bang Theory (BBT) suggests that our universe began to exist from a singularity.[2] After discovery of Doppler Effect it was observed that the galaxies in all directions are going away from each other (by observation of red-shift in their spectrum), hence the universe is expanding.[3] Since the universe is growing bigger, then it was smaller in the past and smaller in the past of the past etc. This expansion must have a beginning in the past where all the galaxies “coincide”. The theory further suggests that the beginning of the universe is a singularity i.e., a 1 dimensional and infinitely small point with infinite density. Let’s translate mathematical terms into ordinary language and then restate what the BBT is talking about.


Infinitely small 1 dimensional point:
a point with zero volume.


Zero volume:
no volume, nothing.


Infinite density
is used to mean that the total amount of mass/energy of the universe was compressed into the singularity point.


So, the BBT simply suggests that the universe has a beginning and began to exist from nothing.



2.
The laws of thermodynamics suggest that the universe has a beginning.


According to laws of thermodynamics, heat always transfers from hotter regions towards cooler regions until all regions have the same temperature. Since there are regions that are cooler than other regions, like stars & galaxies, then the universe didn’t exist for sufficient time for all regions to have the same temperature. Therefore, the universe has a beginning.[4]



3.
Although there are theories that suggest that the universe doesn’t have a beginning (i.e., is eternal), they are too problematic to be reasonably acceptable.[5]


We further discuss this point from a mathematical point of view where we argue for the cause of the universe to be uncaused (below).


Since it is shown that the universe has a beginning, then P2 is valid.



C:
Since P1 and P2 are shown to be valid, then the universe necessarily has a cause (by deduction).




II. THE SECOND PART



P1.
The universe has a cause;



It follows from the first part.



P2.
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;



1) UNCAUSED


Think about beginning (to exist) of the universe. There necessarily exists a cause (C1) for its beginning. There necessarily exists another cause (C2) for C1. … There necessarily exists another cause (Ci) for C(i-1). There are only two options for this chain of causes:


a)
It stops in Ci if and only if (iff) Ci doesn’t need another cause to exist, i.e., iff Ci is uncaused.


b)
Otherwise it goes to (actual) infinity.


If we show that option b is impossible, then option a is necessarily true.


Let's assume that option b is true. Then there is a chain of total of infinite causes (Inf.(T)) before our universe began, i.e., there is no beginning of this chain of causes.


Since infinity = infinity/2 + infinity/2 & infinity/2 = infinity, then there exists a point in infinite chain of causes of our universe, where there are infinite number of causes between this point & our universe (Inf. (1)) & the rest of infinite number of causes before this point (Inf.(2)). Then we have


Inf. (T) = Inf. (1) + Inf. (2)
.


There are still infinitely many causes prior to this point & infinitely many causes after this point until the beginning of our universe.


Since such a point exists on the chain of infinitely many causes of our universe, then our universe waited for infinitely many causes to happen before it began to exist.


What does "waiting for infinitely many causes to happen" mean?


This literally implies that in such a case "our universe waited forever (i.e., infinity) before beginning to exist" which literally means "our universe must still be waiting to begin to exist" which literally means "our universe has not begun to exist yet" which literally means "our universe doesn’t exist yet".


This (i.e., option b above) is a clear contradiction to reality, since our universe DOES exist.


=> Therefore, since option b is impossible, then option a is necessarily true.

Since option a is true, then there necessarily exists a cause Ci which is uncaused.



Further clarification


Imagine a moving train with 80 wagons.


- Since 80th wagon is moving, then what is pulling it (pulling is the type of cause in this case)?


- 79th wagon!


- What about 79th wagon?


- 78th wagon!



- What about 1st wagon?


- Locomotive!


- What is pulling the locomotive?


- What?! The locomotive doesn’t need to be pulled by something else in order to move. It is able to move without being pulled (unlike other wagons it has an engine).


If there are moving wagons (i.e., a train), then there necessarily exists something that, unlike other wagons, doesn’t need ANYTHING ELSE to pull it & it has the ability to move itself & all other wagons, i.e., locomotive. It is so, because infinite number of moving wagons, each of which requires something else to pull it, is physically impossible & logically absurd.


Similarly, for an existing universe (including all causes until the initial cause), where everything in it has a beginning, there necessarily exists an uncaused initial cause that has the ability to create something from nothing. We call this uncaused initial cause as the Creator of the universe or the God.



2.1)
CAUSELESS


If the existence of B depends on A, then the existence of A cannot depend on B (B cannot cause A to exist) because B cannot exist in the first place where A doesn’t. For example, a girl cannot be the grandmother of herself; the cause of her mother who is the cause of herself.


Therefore, since the existence of the universe is the result of (the causal chain until) the initial cause of the universe discussed above, then the initial cause cannot be caused by (anything from) the universe.

Infinity problem also applies to simultaneous causation (e.g. of train), hence impossible.

In conclusion, the cause of the universe is completely causeless.




2) PERSONAL



Very precise constants and precise properties of particles and of laws of universe and their precise outcomes show that these constants and properties are not chosen arbitrarily and for arbitrary outcomes. So, their existence and preciseness in the universe cannot be explained by coincidences or an unconscious or irrational being.


Fine-tuned constants and properties and very precise relationships between these constants, properties, laws of the universe and events surely imply the existence of consciousness and rationality.


Therefore, the uncaused cause of the universe is necessarily a self-conscious and rational being, hence personal by definition[6].




3) CREATOR



Since this cause is the cause of the universe’s coming into existence, then by definition it is the Creator of the universe.[7]




4)
THE CAUSE IS;



1. Beginningless


Since P1 is valid, then nothing that has a beginning is causeless. Since the cause of the universe is causeless, then it has no beginning.


2. Timeless & Spaceless


It is predicted that time and space emerged after the Big Bang, hence after the initial cause. This means that the initial cause existed without time and space. Therefore, that cause is timeless and spaceless.


3. Immaterial


As far as we know, matter cannot exist outside of time and space. Since this cause is timeless and spaceless, then it is reasonable to conclude that this cause is immaterial.


4. Changeless


It is reasonable to say that a beginningless, timeless and spaceless and immaterial being is changeless (this is about changes like development etc.).


5. Enormously powerful


The creator of the universe must have at least enough power to create the universe and everything in it. Therefore, it/he must be enormously powerful. Here the word enormously is used because we don’t have anything to measure such a power and it is beyond our comprehension.



Therefore:


C.
An uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.



CONCLUSION


We call this Creator as God. If one asks what caused God to exist, then the answer is that He is necessarily CAUSELESS, as demonstrated above.


I will provide rebuttals in next round & wish Con best of luck!

Debate Round No. 2
Logic-Bomb

Con

Logic-Bomb forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

REBUTTALS



PART 1



P1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.



a) Equivocation fallacy



Con argues that “[we] have no observable examples of things coming into existence … from nothing”, so it cannot be concluded that beginning to exist from nothing needs a cause.


1. Our observations suggest that the whole spacetime universe came into existence from nothing,[1] so we have indirect observation of things coming into existence from nothing.


2. Even if Con was right, this wouldn’t mean that beginning to exist from nothing doesn’t need a cause, hence Con’s point is refuted.


3. Nothing is nothing. Only nothing can come into existence from nothing by nothing (by no cause). Nothing is not an empty space to think of something popping into it out of it by nothing, because even “space did not exist before the universe” & came into existence after the Big Bang.[2][3]


Con:“… the closest examples we do have of observations of things coming into existence from nothing are virtual particles, which indeed do come in and out of existence(1) without conscious cause(2).”


(1)


1. Virtual particles are formed in a quantum vacuum & "[nothing] is more 'full' than the quantum vacuum since it is full of fluctuations that contribute fundamentally to the values that we observe and measure."[4] Furthermore, it is possible that 95% of it was filled with dark matter & dark energy of which we know almost nothing.[5] Therefore, this example is no closer than any other example.


2. Virtual particles are not real particles, they only show some properties of particles & have too short lifetimes to be observed,[6] that is why they are called virtual. Colors & quarks are real particles that have long lifetimes.


(2)


The first premise is not about a conscious cause, it is only about the existence of at least a cause.


Con continues by providing a long explanation of quantum mechanics behind the nature of subatomic particles.


1. Throughout their explanation Con addresses the cause-effect relationships. E.g., “quarks are caused to exist by excitations in the gluon field”, or “the valleys cancel out the peaks where they meet, & two peaks create intensified points” etc. Since there is nothing about causelessness, then nothing is negated about P1.


2.Con:“If we pull these two binded quarks apart, it will require more energy to clear this increased space between them.”


The energy is not required to “clear” the space between quarks, but to apply a force that dominates the strong force that binds the quarks together.[1]


E.g., to pull the Earth apart from the sun, a force is required to dominate the gravitational force, not to clear the space between them.


3. Con: “Thus, two new particles pop into existence where none were.”


It is the existing energy in a gluon field that turns into two particles, nothing is popping into existence.


4. The superposition of waves doesn’t show us anything about anything popping in or out of existence.


Ex1: standing waves constantly appear & disappear.[7] But they don’t pop in & out of existence. It is only their effect in opposite directions (peak-valley) that add up to zero.


Ex2: If two forces of equal magnitude are applied on an object in opposite directions, then we would measure zero force on the object, while both forces still do exist. Appearance and disappearance of such phenomena cannot be thought as popping in and out of existence.


Shortly, nothing is popping in & out of existence in any scenario of Con’s examples, yet with no cause.



Con claims that it “requires more energy to clear away energy and matter than it does to form it.”


However, there was nothing to be cleared to achieve nothingness.[2]


Con:“…no conclusion about causality can be made about something that is not able to be described as your "thing" that exists.”


1. However, even if it was so, it wouldn’t negate that there is causality.


2. It is strongly supported that the whole spacetime universe began to exist,[8] to which Con concedes.


3. There is no reason to think that something could come out of nothing (e.g., no spacetime) by nothing.


4. Con: “It would require the existence of an infinite amount of energy to have the nothing…”


It would require energy to get the nothingness only if something existed (for destroying it). However, there was nothing to require any energy to get the nothingness out of nothing.



b) Fallacy of composition


Con:The universe therefore, cannot be equated to the things that compose it. Even if all things that make up the universe itself require a cause, that does not mean the universe itself does.”


Since the universe does require the things that make it up, then the universe cannot exist without them in the first place. So, the universe requires all things that make it up & they require an initial uncaused cause. Since the universe exists, then there necessarily exists an initial uncaused cause.



P2. The universe began to exist.


Faulty generalization


Con: “Well our universe did indeed begin to exist in its current form, no claim can be said that this requires a definitive beginning point for whatever it came out of.”


Bare assertion![8][1]


Con further claims that if such an event existed, then it couldn’t “be defined by the laws of physics…”.


Not being able to define something with current laws of physics etc. doesn’t follow that such a thing cannot exist. E.g., dark matter & dark energy, measurement problem, black holes etc.


Con: “..(the Big Bag models) show that all of space and time have an origin. But can this be said to be supportive of the premise "the universe began to exist"?”


But, that is explicitly what it means.


Con: “If time itself began, then the universe has existed for all of time.”


And “all of time” has a beginning.[8] Therefore, the universe that existed for “all of time” still has a beginning.


Con: ”…the universe is still logically said to be eternal.”



Time emerged after the Big Bang, which shows that the Big Bang, hence the early periods of the universe was independent of time.



C1: Therefore the universe has a cause.


Con: “Unsupported by the faulty premises.”


Bare assertion!



PART 2



P1. The universe has a cause.


Con barely asserts that this is logically fallacious, since the premises are faulty. However, I showed that Con was unable to show that the premises are faulty.



P2. If the universe has a cause, then (a) an uncaused, (b) personal creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is (c) beginningless, (d) changeless, (e) immaterial, (f) timeless, (g) spaceless and (h) enormously powerful.


(a)


The uncaused creator may not be the cause right before the emergence of our universe, the premise is also doesn’t make such a claim. It rather states that there necessarily exists an uncaused creator (maybe the creator of something that caused something else that caused something else etc. that finally caused our universe).


Ironically Con’s examples of computer simulations & artificial intelligence actually support the “personal” part of the second premise. How? Both of them require intelligent, rational & conscious beings (i.e., humans in Con’s case) to be developed by. It is reasonable to apply the same analogy to existence of intelligent beings in the universe.


Con: “It could also be that our universe is created by a race from another universe that had a cause.”


Yes, that could be. But the question is “Can this chain of causes go to infinity?”. I showed in R2 that it cannot, hence an initial uncaused creator is necessary.


(b)


1. Con talks about possibilities that our universe could be the result of a scientific experiment from another race.


This example is against Con’s case, because scientific experiments require conscious beings.


2. Con also claims that it could be a god simply experimenting with creation.


Still it is about existence of a conscious, hence personal, being. At least it doesn’t say that there isn’t a personal creator, hence Con’s case is refuted.


Shortly, none of these possibilities negates the necessity of existence of a personal being. On the contrary, they are both talking about existence of such a being.


(
c)


We don’t call a creator who has a beginning as the God. Anything that has a beginning has another cause of its own beginning. Since such a chain of causes cannot go on forever, then there necessarily exists an uncaused (& causeless) being. Such a being is necessarily beginningless, as I demonstrated in R2.


(d)


Con claims that the act of creating is a change.


Although it is a change in creation & created beings, it is not a change in creator. Why would creation from nothing bring any change to the creator? Note that the word change here is about developmental changes etc.


(e)


Con claims that immaterial cannot affect material.


To speculate, the wave-function collapse, spooky action at a distance, quantum entanglement etc. are only some examples that apparently show that immaterial may affect the material. Since this is a reasonable possibility, then Con’s claim is just a bare assertion.


(f) & (g)


Bare assertions by Con!



Both space & time didn’t exist while the state of supergravity started to change into GUT, where space & time didn’t exist (~50% change of state with no time).[8][1] How is that possible?


(h)


Exactly! He is the creator of everything then his power must be capable of creating & making everything the way they are. That is huge enough to be beyond our comprehension & we don’t have anything to measure it.


C2: …


Con:“Equally as much a non-sequitur as a conclusion as it is a premise”


Non-sequitur & bare assertion!


Debate Round No. 3
Logic-Bomb

Con

I would like to start of by apologizing for missing the previous round, as life got in the way. I will present a rebuttal to the first part here, and the second in the next round. Due to space, sources will be posted in the comments.

P1 Ssadi has not presented an argument to support this, but rather asserts that I haven't proven it false. This is an argument from ignorance, and shifting the burden of proof. To make the claim this is valid, one must demonstrate that, not claim it isn't proven it's invalid. The same is true of his demand for a law disproving it.
1 The big bang model does not suggest a beginning, nor that something came from nothing.
2 Onus probandi fallacy. I am not saying that the universe, for certain, doesn't need a cause. Rather I have presented a valid argument that we cannot assume that it does, as the Kalam does. It matters not if I can prove it doesn't require a cause. This is shifting the burden of proof.
3 Nothing is nothing? The entire purpose of my explanation of particle physics is that such a state of nothing doesn't seem possible, as it requires infinite energy, which is itself something. This is a contradiction, and thus negated.

(1)
1 It is indeed true that the vacuum of space is more full than the empty region. The only way to get rid of this full vacuum is to expend infinite energy. It requires energy to have nothing. The point: no consciousness is required, matter forms naturally as a result of the inability for "nothing" to exist. This is what we would expect if the universe doesn't require a cause, and the exact opposite if it did.
2 Virtual particles are quarks. As Scientific American defines them: "Virtual particles are indeed real particles." [1] In fact, they go on to say "But while virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles...",[1] which of course, is what we would expect if we could test them at all. The Casimir effect has been studied and accurately measured to show the forces between metal plates in empty space, which happen to be modified by the presence of virtual particles. Also, colours are not particles. They are wavelengths.

(2) Ssadi has stated the first premise is not about conscious cause. Thus to assert it concludes such is yet another equivocation fallacy. To get the Kalam argument from "everything requires a cause" to "the cause must be a personal, conscious god", one must equate these two.
1 Quarks are not caused to exist by excitations. Quarks are the excitation. This attempt to attribute cause and effect is entirely a straw-man intended to demonstrate the necessity of causality where there simply isn't one.
2 This premise is simply untrue. It is entirely an opinion presented in an editorial on a column, by a financier/economist. [2] It is neither supported by scientific evidence, nor suggested by it. In fact, his entire article erroneously states events of the big bang. It is, I tread cautiously to avoid appealing to an ad hominem, exactly the type of "science" one would expect from a source that advertises free energy scams and perpetual motion devices that defy the very laws of physics it so erroneously explains. It is, in fact, the strong atomic force that does clear the space between quarks. This force of clearing this space is what binds them, as the cleared flux tube is surrounded by energy that forces them to. It is this that is called the strong atomic force.
The example of the Earth being pulled apart from the Sun is a false analogy fallacy.
3 Indeed it is the existing energy that turns into these particles, as it requires this energy to clear the vacuum to create the flux tube that would otherwise bind them. This just further demonstrates the inability for "nothing" to "exist", for lack of better term. Nothing is popping into existence, in the sense of ex nihilo suggested by the Kalam, because such a condition simply isn't suggested to even be possible by the available data. This is precisely the point of my argument. You cannot positively assert that such a state of "nothing" is even possible, given that the very requirements of it are infinite energy. Absent infinite energy, we have a state of the universe we see today. Absent all energy, we would have no energy to clear this field, and thus, the gluon field would necessarily exist.
4 Superposition in waves doesn't apply to a single standing wave as Ssadi has suggested in his first example. It is exactly as I described, the effect of cancelling out waves due to interference patterns of two waves intersecting. [3] His second example applies to a force, but does not equate to the definition of energy, which is defined as a system's potential to do work.[4] If a net energy input is directly opposed, then the system has no potential to do work, meaning it has no energy. This is the very nature of entropy.
Ssadi has suggested, yet again without justification, that "there was nothing to be cleared to get the nothingness out of nothing". Not only does this assume that "nothingness" is some tangible existence of itself, but it also requires us to abandon all of the evidence modern quantum physics has demonstrated to be true.
b) Ssadi's explanation of this is hardly satisfying. Again, we can apply the same logic to the composition of humans, and reach the absurd conclusion the same:
"Since the human body does require the things that make it up, then the human body cannot exist without them in the first place. So, the human body requires all things that make it up & they require being microscopic."
The universe is a set of things, and those things require forces to interact. Yet we know that these forces are the product of the formation of our current universe, not the cause. Relativity explains this in full. The laws of physics break down at the point of a singularity, meaning that they cannot be responsible for the conditions that brought them into "existence", as it were. Furthermore, we know that fundamental laws, such as the conservation of energy (that energy cannot be created) do not apply at the quantum level. [1] Thus, to demand that we accept they do, contradicts reality. Thus, this premise necessarily requires we deny what we know is true, in order to accept it.

P2
1 I suspect that Ssadi is misunderstanding what is meant by singularity:
a location where the quantities that are used to measure the gravitational field of a celestial body become infinite in a way that does not depend on the coordinate system. These quantities are the scalar invariant curvatures of spacetime, which includes a measure of the density of matter. The laws of normal spacetime could not exist within a singularity. [5][6]
a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down". [7]
So in short, a singularity is a point in which gravity and spacetime curvature become infinite. A singularity is not a single point in space. In fact, the singularity referred to in most big bang models is all space, all at once.
It is true that space is expanding, but the question of what it is expanding into is nonsensical. Space is infinite. How does something that is infinite in size expand? Into itself. There is no center point with which the universe is expanding. It has always been infinite. It is expanding into itself. The singularity presented by many big bang models was not a point with zero volume.
Many models of the big bang neither require a singularity, nor suggest one. Many models not only suggest no singularity, but an eternal universe in its place [8][9]
2 The laws of Thermodynamics do not suggest the universe had a beginning, for a few reasons. Of course, the biggest flaw to this, is in Ssadi's own suggestion of acceptance of the singularity. For this singularity necessarily means the complete breakdown of the laws of thermodynamics. Thus, any argument in which an origin absent these laws, must not violate their existence, is nonsensical.
3 An appeal to incredulity. There is no complete theory to explain the origin of the universe. We still require the unified theory in order to bring together quantum mechanics with General Relativity and Newtonian physics.
Ssadi claims this is a bare assertion, yet it is in fact, his own argument that is. His first source is neither fact, nor proper science. It is the opinion of someone who doesn't even state the reality of the theory. It is an erroneous assumption based on false science. His latter claim, on the Grand Unified Theory, makes no attempt to equate such a beginning as he defines it.
Ssadi then goes on to explain that the laws of physics being derived from the formation of our universe doesn't mean things that exist based on them couldn't have prior to this. Incredulous claims are hardly worth considering. Again, the entire argument presented is that the laws of physics necessarily require the universe to have a beginning. Yet this beginning necessarily requires it be responsible for creating these laws. So I have to ask, why should we apply them to a period we know they didn't exist in? To assert this, is entirely illogical.
Ssadi does accept the universe existing for all of time. His assertion that it requires a beginning is based on the human flaw of assuming time has a linear "flow" to which we know isn't true. His conclusion requires us to ignore all the fundamental concepts of Relativity, for which I am not prepared to do. Incredulous statements simply do not undo a century of refined scientific data.
If time emerged after the big bang, which simply cannot be, as it means no change of state to cause the big bang in the first place, then it still doesn't follow that the early periods of the universe were independent of time. It's nonsensical.
ssadi

Pro

I would like to thank Con for presenting their arguments for R4.


This round is only for defense of our opening arguments against the rebuttals (of R3). Since Con failed to provide any rebuttal in R3 to my opening arguments (of R2), then I extend my opening arguments (since I am not allowed to provide anything for/against other materials provided by Con, e.g., for/against their arguments of R4).



Reminder


Con wrote that they will provide rebuttals to the second part of KCA in next round (i.e., in R5). I would like to kindly remind Con that they cannot provide any rebuttal or defense in R5 as per rules and debate structure set (Rule #2). We can only provide a conclusion of materials already presented.


I wish Con best of luck!
Debate Round No. 4
Logic-Bomb

Con

Logic-Bomb forfeited this round.
ssadi

Pro

CLOSING ARGUMENTS


In round 2, I provided arguments that show that KCA is valid. Con forfeited round 3, where they had to provide rebuttals to my arguments.



In round 3, I negated Con's claims that KCA was not valid.. Their whole arguments in round 2 were just bare assertions, they didn't provide any evidence or source to support their claims..


In addition, they provided very distorted information, like barely asserting that quarks were virtual particles. I provided evidence that virtual particles are not real particles. Con, mistakenly, interpreted it in round 4 as if I said virtual particles are not real, i.e., they didn't exist. I didn't say that they were not real, I said, and provided evidence, that they were not real particles, hence they were something else.


I also showed that quantum vacuum is not *nothing*, since even space and time are something. I provided evidence that 95% of our universe is dark, dark matter and dark energy, about which we know nothing, yet. Therefore, it is possible that 95% of quantum vacuum, where virtual particles appear and disappear, was filled with dark matter and dark energy. So, claiming that something appearing and disappearing in a quantum vacuum is evidence for things coming into existence from nothing without any cause is a hasty conclusion and a bare assertion.



I didn't provide any defense in round 4 since Con forfeited round 3, hence no rebuttals were provided.


I cannot provide rebuttals to Con's defense in round 4 here. But I would like to note 1 point they made about my Ref.#1 in round 3. They claimed that it is not a reliable scientific source because the author was not a scientist and the site was not a scientific one. I encourage the readers and voters to go and check the references given in Ref. #1 and the editor of that article to see if Con's claims are fair. In addition, I cited Ref. #1 many times with Ref. #8, which is one of the author's sources for their article in Ref. #1. Con made that claim without checking the references and the editor of that article, just to criticize my sources..



CON'S SOURCES


Con provided their sources for their arguments in round 3 under comments section. However, the voters should not consider anything outside of the debate section, unless there was a rule that we could give our sources etc. somewhere else other than the debate section. Since no such rule was provided, then it is by default that we to use only debate section for whole of our materials.



So, I would like to kindly ask voters to ignore Con's sources for their arguments in roudn 3 which were posted under comments.



FORFEITURES


Con forfeited 2 out of 5 rounds. Since round 1 was for acceptance only, then it means that Con forfeited half of the rounds of the debate (where we had to argue). I would like to kindly ask the voters to consider it while voting.



I would like to thank the voters for their time and consideration in advance. I also would like to thank Con for instigating this interesting debate and giving me the chance to be part of it. I wish them the best of luck in their life.



Vote Pro, please!
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ssadi 6 months ago
ssadi
@lannan13

Thank you very much for the vote!
Posted by TUF 6 months ago
TUF
Thanks for voting lannan!
Posted by TUF 6 months ago
TUF
NP saadi
Posted by lannan13 6 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 3: Conclusion

With that, Pro had won all arguments that were put forth and in doing so had the syllogism of the KCA intact. With that I award him the arguments points in this debate.

This vote has been brought to you by the Voter's Union.
Posted by lannan13 6 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 2

On the Faulty generalization argument, Con argues that we, as humans, can't really grasp the understanding of the beginning/creation of the universe and it would be outside of our relm of understanding and/or philosophical grasps. Con had brought up the aspect of singularities where the laws of physics tend to disapate as a justification here. Pro points this out to be nonsensical as just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. He goes on to show how many other laws of physics are still entact until proven otherwise. Con moves on to say that the BBT model isn't sound in proving the beginning of the universe. Even if that may be true, we would still have to see that there are a plentitude of other models that can also show us the universe had a beginning outside of the BBT model.
Posted by lannan13 6 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 1

Here in this debate, the KCA is a syllogism, meaning that all Con would have to do is simply disprove one premise in order to win the debate as it would disprove the entire syllogism. The BOP is shared, but this debate does start as a disadvantage to Pro due to that factor. The forfeits in the two rounds had really harmed Con, and it makes things a little foggy to begin with.

Con first brings up how ex nihlo seems improbably. He justifies this by showing how everything can simply come from atoms rearragning themselves to create brand new things. With a finite source of matter in the universe, it would be simple to show just how the lack of visable matter exists, but the amount of matter that the human eye cannot see would be the same amount. Con continues to break this down by showing how quarks have to have certain spins in order to give off certain amounts of energy. In this, it produces energy. The energy can also cancel itself out if the peaks and waves intermix. Pro responds by stating that something cannot come from nothing, hence a cause is needed, he even argues that at the point of the beginning of the universe, we see it comes from a singularity which tends to muddy the waters of the laws of physicis, which is something that Con also talks about, but states that until proven otherwise, the Laws of Physics shall remain entact. He moves on to the Enthropy of the universe and how heat can become dispearsed across the universe as it tries to reach an equalibrium. He uses this to explain that if the universe didn't have a beginning that there would already have been a heat death in the universe. Pro refutes Con's argument on quarks by stating that this may be a case, but it doesn't justify just how things can sort of 'pop' in and out of existance and goes on to show that it could simply be the valley's and peaks going in opposite directions from after a collision that would have occured in Con's statement.
Posted by ssadi 6 months ago
ssadi
@TUF

Thanks for the vote with a detailed RFD. I appreciate it.
Posted by Logic-Bomb 6 months ago
Logic-Bomb
[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[5] http://www.brighthub.com...
[3] http://www.acs.psu.edu...
[4] Benno Maurus Nigg, Brian R. Macintosh, Joachim Mester (2000). "Biomechanics and Biology of Movement".
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.einstein-online.info...
[7] http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...
[8] http://phys.org...
[9] http://phys.org...
Posted by ssadi 6 months ago
ssadi
I will not post arguments in R4..
Posted by ssadi 6 months ago
ssadi
:) Would it be unfair if I posted my arguments in R3? Why?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 6 months ago
lannan13
Logic-BombssadiTied
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 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: RFD in comments section.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 months ago
TUF
Logic-BombssadiTied
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: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jk_YePNtOfEOLzwDXXcgs5WQ8uMiDymahtUuhwQWQJ0/edit?usp=sharing