The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
byaka2013
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Kalam Cosmological Argument for God's Existence

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 1 vote the winner is...
byaka2013
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 369 times Debate No: 103406
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

Anything that begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause

The scriptures reveal that cause as God.

See more details on these facts in this short related video:

https://www.youtube.com...
byaka2013

Con

As a advance defense for the following claims, let me prove that God is material and would thus abide by the laws of nature and physics, already a contradiction.

Syllogistic:
  1. According to 'scriptures', God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.
  2. If you say God is immaterial and/ or doesn't abide by natural law as a defense, allow me to disprove that:
  3. If something is immaterial, it contains no space and no time.
  4. God is immaterial, according to your scriptures.
  5. Therefore, God is not the God in your scriptures, so the God as you know it does not exist.
  6. So if God does take up space and time, why has he not revealed Himself to us?
Now, let me proceed with the debunking.

There is no reason to assume all things in your Bible are correct. Just because one thing in it exists/ happened, doesn't mean the rest did. By that logic, everything in Narnia is real, because it contains the UK and WWII.

So, your argument doesn't support theism, as all scriptures support their own dieties to at least the extent to which yours does.

Also, even if this argument was sound and proved the universe had a cause, it wouldn't say that was the first cause.

Besides, what is to say the universe began to exist? Before the Big Bang (no mini debates please), there was no time and space so there was no need for a cause.

Equivocation Fallacy
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
To quote Rationality Rules on YouTube, during premise 2 your argument uses the scientific definition of the universe.

Scientific universe: All matter, space and time.

During premise 3, the argument uses a colloquial/ theological definition.

Colloquial/ theological universe: Everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. The two defintions are contradictory when discussing the subtopic of how something can come from nothing.

Essentially, the theological argument uses creatio ex nihilio, the concept of creation out of nothing. However, this has never been demonstrated to occur. You assert that the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception.
Debate Round No. 1
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"Besides, what is to say the universe began to exist?"

According to the conclusions of modern science, the universe began to exist a limited amount of time in the past: Specifically, about 14 billion years ago.

"Before the Big Bang (no mini debates please), there was no time and space so there was no need for a cause."

Yes, there was need for a cause.

"Equivocation Fallacy
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
To quote Rationality Rules on YouTube, during premise 2 your argument uses the scientific definition of the universe."

So what? That's not equivocation. LOL SMH

Scientific universe: All matter, space and time.

"During premise 3, the argument uses a colloquial/ theological definition."

No it doesn't.

"Colloquial/ theological universe: Everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. The two defintions are contradictory when discussing the subtopic of how something can come from nothing."

My argument doesn't use either of the definitions that you typed above -- you are arguing against your own argument, and disregarding what I actually said in my argument, which is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"Essentially, the theological argument uses creatio ex nihilio, the concept of creation out of nothing. However, this has never been demonstrated to occur. You assert that the cause of the universe didn"t begin to exist and therefore it didn"t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception."

Again, straw man because none of the above is included in my actual argument.

Most of your comment was irrelevant to my actual argument, so I didn't include that nonsense in my response.

You lost the debate.
byaka2013

Con

Instead of making completely unsubstantiated claims, you should actually attempt to refute my points instead of just saying, "No it doesn't", or "Most of your comment was irrelevant to my actual argument, so I didn't include that nonsense in my response. You lost the debate."

I am going to use warp.povusers.org for this.

Flaws

1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. On what grounds is this assumption made?

Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist" in the sense that the arrangement of matter that people agree are "tables" and "chairs" begin to "exist" when someone arranges the matter in those precise ways. However, that's not what the premise is arguing. The matter itself didn't "begin to exist". It was just rearranged. The argument refers to first there being nothing, and then something beginning to exist.

This is an unfounded premise which cannot just be assumed without any justification, and currently there is no justification to make it according to known physics. According to current knowledge energy (which is what matter consists of) cannot be created nor destroyed. The energy that exists in this universe is, as far as we know, permanent: It doesn't change. Nothing of it can be destroyed, nor can it be created. The only thing that can happen is for the energy to change from one state to another, but the total amount is always preserved.

Comparing concepts like "the chair began to exist when the carpenter created it" and "the universe began to exist", and considering them equivalent, would be a fallacy of equivocation. It's certainly not the same thing. (In the first case nothing actually came into existence. A more accurate assessment would be that matter was transformed from one shape to another.)

Did the energy in this universe "begin to exist" at some point, or has it always existed (the definition of "always" not being trivial, as we will see later)? This is currently an unknown. There is no justification to say either way. Thus, especially in this context, there is no justification to say that it did begin to exist. Hence the premise is unfounded.

2) Even if we make the assumption that energy "began to exist", the second assumption made by the premise is also unfounded: That it must have had a cause for it beginning to exist.

Again, there is no justification for this claim according to modern knowledge of physics. For example, according to current knowledge, in quantum mechanics so-called virtual particles begin to exist (in a sense) without any cause for their existence. Their appearance is spontaneous and stochastic. (Spontaneous means that there is no external cause for the phenomenon happening, and stochastic means that it's not possible to predict when or where it will happen, in other words, the phenomenon is completely non-deterministic and uncaused.)

It is currently unknown whether the energy in this universe has always existed or if it appeared spontaneously (inside a "metaverse", possibly paired with a "negative universe" with an equal amount of "negative energy"). There is no justification to make a claim one way or the other. It is certainly not completely out of question that it was a phenomenon without a deterministic cause.

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.

Unfounded assumption. We don't know if the universe began to exist or if it has "always" existed in some form. (The Big Bang theory does not state that the universe began to exist. It only states that at some point all the universe was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, from which it expanded. It does not make claims on where that point came from or what happened "before".)

It's possible that this universe did begin to exist, but that the phenomenon was spontaneous and uncaused. (If there is a "metaverse" inside which our universe resides, this kind of phenomenon might be happening all the time, eg. with positive-negative pairs of "universes" popping up spontaneously. This is one possibility among many.)

3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence.

The conclusion is invalid because the two premises are invalid. (It might be true, but there's no justification for making the claim.

MATTER CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED.

Also, even if the argument proved true and was sound, all it would prove is that the universe had a cause. It would NOT prove the existence of any specific diety or subsect of as religion.

My argument contains no Straw Man flaws.

And so, to put it in terms you would understand,

SORRY, BUT YOU LOST THE DEBATE

Debate Round No. 2
Purushadasa

Pro

Someone wrote:

"1) It assumes that things can begin to exist. On what grounds is this assumption made?"

I made no such assumption.

"Sure, common-day objects such as tables and chairs "begin to exist"

Yes, so we agree that things can and do begin to exist.

"The matter itself didn't "begin to exist""

Yes it did.

"The argument refers to first there being nothing, and then something beginning to exist."

No it doesn't, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"The only thing that can happen is for the energy to change from one state to another, but the total amount is always preserved."

No it isn't.

"Comparing concepts like "the chair began to exist when the carpenter created it" and "the universe began to exist", and considering them equivalent, would be a fallacy of equivocation."

No it wouldn't.

"It's certainly not the same thing."

I never claimed they were "the same thing," so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"(In the first case nothing actually came into existence."

Ye, something did.

" A more accurate assessment would be that matter was transformed from one shape to another.)"

No it wouldn't.

"Did the energy in this universe "begin to exist" at some point, or has it always existed (the definition of "always" not being trivial, as we will see later)? This is currently an unknown."

No, it isn't an unknown.

" There is no justification to say either way."

Yes there is.

" Thus, especially in this context, there is no justification to say that it did begin to exist"

Yes there is.

". Hence the premise is unfounded."

No it isn't.

"2) Even if we make the assumption that energy "began to exist", the second assumption made by the premise is also unfounded:"

No it isn't.

" That it must have had a cause for it beginning to exist."

It did require a cause, actually.

"Again, there is no justification for this claim according to modern knowledge of physics."

I didn't claim that there was, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part.

" For example, according to current knowledge, in quantum mechanics so-called virtual particles begin to exist (in a sense) without any cause for their existence."

No they don't.

" Their appearance is spontaneous and stochastic."

No it isn't.

"There is no justification to make a claim one way or the other."

Yes there is.

" It is certainly not completely out of question that it was a phenomenon without a deterministic cause.""

I never posited a "deterministic cause," so that is yet another straw man on your part.

"2. The universe has a beginning of its existence."

I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man on your part.

"We don't know if the universe began to exist or if it has "always" existed in some form."

Yes we do.

"It's possible that this universe did begin to exist, but that the phenomenon was spontaneous and uncaused."

No it isn't.

"3. Thus the universe has a cause of its existence."

You are arguing against someone else's argument, not against mine. I never made the above statement, so this is yet another strawman on your part: Please argue against my actual statements instead of someone else's, from now on.

"The conclusion is invalid because the two premises are invalid. (It might be true, but there's no justification for making the claim."

The conclusion to which you refer was written by someone other than me, so your above statement is yet another straw man on your part.

"My argument contains no Straw Man flaws."

Actually, you failed to address even a single word of my actual argument, choosing instead to argue against an argument written by someone other than myself. Therefore your entire response was nothing but a long string of straw man logical fallacies. Therefore you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
byaka2013

Con

Not only am I fed up with your ignorance and persistence to support unsubstantiated claims, I am also now just angry.

THERE WERE NON STRAW MAN FLAWS. When you say "Something did" or " No it doesn't", that's not it. YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY, WHICH YOU FAILED TO DO. SURE I BORROWED SOMEONE ELSES ARGUMENTS, BUT AT LEAST K CITED A SOURCE, SOMETHING YOU DID NOT DO.

Purushadasa
Pro
KALAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

Anything that begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause

The scriptures reveal that cause as God.

HOW do the scriptures reveal this to be God? Also, you claim you never said the universe had a cause of existence, when you clearly did in round one. These are not straw man fallacies and since you failed to logically and empirically debate me, I should win.

You lost the debate.

Arrogant, isn't it?
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"Besides, what is to say the universe began to exist?"

According to the conclusions of modern science, the universe began to exist a limited amount of time in the past: Specifically, about 14 billion years ago.

"Before the Big Bang (no mini debates please), there was no time and space so there was no need for a cause."

Yes, there was need for a cause.

"Equivocation Fallacy
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.
To quote Rationality Rules on YouTube, during premise 2 your argument uses the scientific definition of the universe."

So what? That's not equivocation. LOL SMH

Scientific universe: All matter, space and time.

"During premise 3, the argument uses a colloquial/ theological definition."

No it doesn't.

"Colloquial/ theological universe: Everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. The two defintions are contradictory when discussing the subtopic of how something can come from nothing."

My argument doesn't use either of the definitions that you typed above -- you are arguing against your own argument, and disregarding what I actually said in my argument, which is a straw man logical fallacy on your part.

"Essentially, the theological argument uses creatio ex nihilio, the concept of creation out of nothing. However, this has never been demonstrated to occur. You assert that the cause of the universe didn"t begin to exist and therefore it didn"t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception."

Again, straw man because none of the above is included in my actual argument.

Most of your comment was irrelevant to my actual argument, so I didn't include that nonsense in my response.

You lost the debate.
Posted by byaka2013 11 months ago
byaka2013
There is no reason to post a comment here and there is no reason to make that a debate judgement criteria. You didn't say I was supposed to post a comment.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
I'm new here, so I don't quite understand how it works yet. I see that someone accepted my debate challenge, but he has not posted any comments. I guess this means that I win by default, right? =)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phenenas 11 months ago
Phenenas
Purushadasabyaka2013Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is full of garbage.