The Instigator
Sargon
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
Fruitytree
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

KCA Debate

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...
Sargon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,442 times Debate No: 35102
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Sargon

Con

Ave.

Modern day theists use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to establish the existence of god, who is defined as the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, probably omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe. The argument has three premises.

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

By deductive reasoning, that cause is established to be god. I want a theist to accept this debate and demonstrate the truth of the premises and the logical validity of the argument. The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate that the KCA is true beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

The next round is for Pro's opening statement. Pro should leave a round blank for fairness.

Vale.
Fruitytree

Pro

I start off by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate.


I will prcede with the premises analyse..


P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.


Everything: anything that we know about.


Begins to exist: was inexistent in the past then starts to exist at some point in time.


A cause: something that triggers the beginning of our object, the Cause can be a combination of factors (like for the rain) and can be a sentient being (like for a car).

The Human has the ability to reason, and this first premise a fundamental law in reasoning, whenever we see a new thing, we assume its existence has a cause, and we have been ,based on this premise, to build our knowledge of science and physics. So much that one who beleives that some event doesn't have a cause is considered irrational.


P2: The universe began to exist.


As part of "everything" , the universe is assumed to have begun to exist, and theories are made on the cause of it's beginning, we basically assume the universe didn't exist since ever, but began to be in a specific point in the past, before which the universe was simply NOT. and the reason why we assume it begun to exist is that the first premise never failed.

C: The universe had a cause.


The Logical conclusion that follows from the two first premises.


The Cause here needs to be a sentient being, for the universe isn't anything, but a series of events that led to be the way it is, a complexe and organised combination of machines.


No Combination of factors can lead to the existence of a universe like ours, this if we assume there could be any possible factors before the universe was.


The sentient being has to have the following attributes at least:

Has no cause himself: for the causal rule needs a setter.


Has absolute free will: as He has no cause, nothing can prevent him from anything.


Power and ability: necessary to do anything.


The legitimate owner of everything: what ever exist is directly or indirectly created by Him.


Is Independent of time and space: as those too need a creator.


Now I send it to my opponent so he can start with the rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 1
Sargon

Con

Ave.

The Kalam cosmological argument has many assumptions that are built into it. I want to bring out these assumptions and show that they contradict other parts of the arguments, or that they can be disproven by modern science. If I can do this successfully, then I think there are very good reasons to consider the Kalam a bad argument.

The first assumption of the KCA is that there is a first state of time that god causes. This assumption is contradicted by science. The theory of relativity is one of the most proven theories of science, which describes the nature of gravity and time and space existing as one continuum. Over the 20th century, scientists such as Friedmann, Lemaitre, Robertson, and Walker derived equations from relativity that describe our universe as homogenous, isotropic, and expanding or contracting. These metrics also state that every interval of time is 'half open' This means that you can divide any state of time in half.[1]The first hour after the Big Bang can be divided into thirty minutes and thirty minutes. The first nanosecond can be divided into half a nanosecond and half a nanosecond. Half a nanosecond can be divided into 1/2 of 1/2 of a nanosecond, ad infinitum. A first state of time cannot be half-open, because if it were, then it would not be a true first state of time. The theory of relativity shows that a first state of time does not exist. If a first state of time does not exist, then god cannot cause the first state of time. Therefore, there is an attribute of god that cannot be actualized.

The KCA depends on the idea of simultaneous causation.[2] Simultaneous causation is the idea that ‘’the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous.’’ [3]The possibility of simultaneous causation allows us to explain the existence of matter without reference to a personal cause. Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time. Using the assumptions of the KCA, it can be demonstrated that there is no need to have a personal cause of matter. Pro says that god is: '
The legitimate owner of everything: what ever exist is directly or indirectly created by Him.' That is an attribute of god that cannot be actualized either.

Quentin Smith gave a talk that demolishes the idea of a personal cause.[4]He mentions the development of the Wave Function of the Universe by scientists such as Hawking and Vilenkin. It ‘’implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.’’ The Wave Function also has a large amount of evidence to support it: ‘’This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.’’ The universe came from ‘’a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe.’’ This demonstrates that a personal cause is not needed, but more importantly, it demonstrates that a personal cause is unlikely. As Smith says: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’’

There are two points that are made by mentioning the Wavelength Function of the Universe. 1: A personal being is not needed to explain the universe. 2: A personal being would contradict the evidence from physics.

The attack on the Kalam is summarized as follows.
1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.
2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.
3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.
4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.

For these reasons, the Kalam is not true beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

Vale.

References
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.apologeticspress.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.infidels.org...

Fruitytree

Pro

Fruitytree forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Sargon

Con

Ave.

I gave four reasons for thinking that the KCA is a bad argument in my last round.

1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.
2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.
3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.
4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.

None of these reasons have been addressed by Pro, as she forfeited the last round. I extend my arguments.

Vale.
Fruitytree

Pro

Thank you Sargon for your argument.

I shall answer your points one by one:

1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.

The KCA doesn't imply that God created an initial state of time. it just says the events that have a finite past, have a cause. and the universe is one event that has a finite past. and science fonfirms the universe has an age.
http://www.slate.com...

2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.

This wouldn't answer the cause as: What did cause the universe, but answers : How was the unicerse caused , this is a common mistake people make when the subject is the Cause, that they describe the process instead.If I ask what caused the forest fire, I don't expect you to describe the process by which fire is trigered! but what caused the fire, whether it be a person or a combination of factors.


3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.

Again, the explanation of the origin of the universe, doesn't indermine a cause to the universe: as much as explaining how a seed grows into a plant doens't indermine that the cause is the seed design (call it nature) that allows the seed to respond to a combination of factors by growing into a specific plant.


Likewise, explaining the universe existence by wave function doesn't take in cosideration the cause that lead the wave function to behave the way it does! this if the theory is true. and an incomplete probability (if we consider that such a probability have been calculated accurately which I strongly doubt) allows to consider a creator to the universe.

It still leaves questions unanswered, the causal question specifically, after knowing how, we want to know What caused the firststep of the universe birth. what caused that change ?


4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.

As long as the probability allows it, the existence of God doesn't contradict the law, and the phisiscs laws cannot take God into consideration, for He isn't part of the universe. Your turn.
Debate Round No. 3
Sargon

Con

Ave.

I’m happy to see that Pro decided to continue with the debate. I’ll start off my rebuttal with a summary of things that were ignored by Pro, and then I’ll answer the points she made in the last round.

1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.

The following points were not addressed by Pro in her last round. We can consider them to be true because of this.

- The theory of relativity is true.
- FLRK metrics are derived from the theory of relativity.
- These metrics also state that every interval of time is 'half open'.
- A first state of time cannot be half-open, because if it were, then it would not be a true first state of time.
- The theory of relativity shows that a first state of time does not exist.
- If a first state of time does not exist, then god cannot cause the first state of time.
- Therefore, there is an attribute of god that cannot be actualized.

The only thing Pro objects to is that the KCA assumes god created a first state of time. Instead, writes Pro, there is a finite past that had to be caused by god. The difference between this and god causing the first state of time is as large as the difference between H2O and water. If time is a series of states that exhaust at a point in the past, and god created time, then god would have to cause that point, or first state of time. There is no operative difference between god causing the first state of time and time having a finite past. The KCA does assume that god caused a first state of time. This assumption is wrong because of all the reasons above, none of which were answered to by Pro.

2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.


First of all, I wasn't even trying to explain the origins of the universe using simultaneous causation. I was trying to explain the origins of matter using simultaneous causation. The universe is much more than matter, because it contains over things like space-time. The notion that point two was trying to explain the universe is false.

Remember what I said in my last round: Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time.

The mechanism of how matter forms is simultaneous causation. The cause of the mechanism is that each atom is causing another atom to begin to exist, and they all begin to exist at the same time. Ergo, there is both a mechanism and a cause of that mechanism. There is both a 'how' and a 'what', contrary to what Pro asserts.

3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.


I’ll present another list of points that were not answered to, so it can be assumed that they are true.

- The WFU is confirmed by a large amount of empirical evidence.
- The WFU says that our universe has a 95% chance of coming into being.
- If an omnipotent god willed our universe, it would have a 100% chance of coming into being.

Contrary to what Pro asserts, an explanation of the origin of the universe is not meant to undermine a cause to the universe. It's meant to show what that cause is! As Quentin Smith says about Hawking, 'He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10^-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.' This is a causal explanation of the universe. The universe exists because it is connected to a timeless, four-dimensional hypersphere. What caused this hypersphere? It doesn't need a cause, because it exists out of time, just like the theistic conception of god.

(The four dimensional hypersphere is an implication of the WFU.)

Pro thinks that there is still room for god to have caused the universe to exist, even with this in mind. I'll turn to this idea in point four.

4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.


Keep in mind the three points that can be assumed to be true because Pro has not answered them.


- The WFU is confirmed by a large amount of empirical evidence.
- The WFU says that our universe has a 95% chance of coming into being.
- If an omnipotent god willed our universe, it would have a 100% chance of coming into being.

Pro argues that the WVU does not contradict the existence of god. Unfortunately, she never explains why this is the case. If god wills the universe to exist, then there is a 100% chance that the universe will exist. Otherwise, god would not be omnipotent. However, the science shows that a universe like ours only has a 95% chance of existing. Therefore, it could not have been willed by an omnipotent god. This is a logically valid modus tollens argument. P implies Q, not Q, therefore not P. If the universe was created by an omnipotent god (P), then the probability of our universe existing would be 100% (Q). The probability of our universe existing is not 100% (not Q), therefore the universe was not caused by an omnipotent god (not P). The only thing left to do is prove that the premises are true, and since Pro has not touched the premises, they should be considered as true. Therefore, this point stands, and the WVU contradicts the existence of a god who caused the universe.

Conclusion
Pro does not answer many of the points I made, so we can assume the points to be true until they answered to. I have demonstrated that Pro's answers to my points are unsatisfactory to establish the proponderance of evidence in his favor. A Con vote is most justified.

Vale.
Fruitytree

Pro

Thanks Con.

1: The theory of relativity shows that god cannot create an initial state of time.


Con assumes the universe time is all the time, but time is much greater, it's infinite. Time is one of the attributes of God.


God created the universe which is one event in the time course , an event that has a beginning and therefore has a cause.


Time is independant of events. but events are dependent of time.


There is nothing that suggests time started to be simultaneously with the universe! The universe only gives us a way to calculate time.

2: The possibility of simultaneous causation shows that matter can form without a personal being.

"Remember what I said in my last round: Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time."


Well A must have a cause as it began to exist, right ? and the rest is just the nature of A but this means at a moment t , A can't be identified as A nor B nor C ? as it "instantanuously" mutates ! then what stopped this event ? this thing is not an atom, and at no moment can you call it atom or matter. and it still has to begin to exist!

3: The Wavelength Function of the Universe explains the origins of our universe without a personal being.


You seem not to be very good with probabilities, an event can have a chance in 1 million to happen and still happen, once it happens you can call it miracle if you want but it really could have happened anyways.


The probability of having a sentient cause is always 100 percent, for there is nothing that can undermine a creator to the universe. and this probability is higher than any other cause.


" The universe exists because it is connected to a timeless, four-dimensional hypersphere. "


If the universe that began to exist is connected to an infinite sphere that doesn't depend on time, why is our universe finite ?! How does the sphere do to start an event , knowing the sphere isn't sentient and therefore can't will for something to happen?!


The 4 dimentional hypersphere just doesn't make a sense as a cause to a universe like ours or any kind of universe, except an infinite empty space.

4: The Wavelength Function of the Universe shows that a personal being contradicts the evidence from physics.



There is simply no way of knowing what God wills then calculating the probability.



If something has a small peobability to be, then He wills it and it is, the fact that the rprobability rain falls today doesn't say anything about God omnipotance, but about his ability to do what He wills.

Things don't have to have a chance to exist in order for God to create them, so whatever probability you give for the existence of the universe it wouldn't undermine the sentient creator, except if the probability is 100 percent. which means the universe had to be whether God wanted it or not. then we'd have a problem.


This text that you quote seems to have been written by a drunk atheist, or at least, one that doesn't have his full capacity to reason!



Also you didn't show how he brought this probability of 95 percent, the universe as it is today has a much smaller probability to be. where did he start from ? the hypersphere nobody have seen ?!


In conclusion
,



Con has based his rebuttals on a weak argument based on an unproved theory, and a series of wrong assumptions.

Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
I should have realized that. Usually, I'm used to phrasing my resolutions in the negative.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I am not going to accept this, I just want to let you know the best way to structure your debate if you want the BoP on Pro.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
If the burden of proof is on Pro, then the first round should not be for acceptance. You should just let them post in the first round, and then have them post "no argument will be posted here as agreed" in the last round, so you get the last word. Take this debate on the Kalam I did for instance:

http://www.debate.org...

This is how you want to start a debate, with your opponent having the burden of proof.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
SargonFruitytreeTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better sources, also Pro just didn't know how to respond to Con's arguments sufficiently. She comes with a lot of bare assertions with nothing to back them up.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
SargonFruitytreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro ff'd a round, and posted ad homonym attacks against theorists whose arguments she clearly does not understand (nor do I, a non-physicist, admittedly) S&G: Pro had poor grammar in some parts, and the spelling was at times poor to the point of distraction. Arguments go to Con for stating a strong case which was not answered or refuted. Pro begs the question and engages in special pleading, which fails to compel me. Sources: Con effectively used many more sources, I only saw Slate referenced by Pro.