The Instigator
PowerPikachu21
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
HikaruRose
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Kalam Cosmological Argument

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
PowerPikachu21
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 255 times Debate No: 83145
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

PowerPikachu21

Pro

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, it can't come from nothing, and no object can create itself, since it would be coming from nothing then.

The Universe began to exist, since if it didn't begin to exist, we'd be out of usable energy 100 years ago.

Therefore, the Universe has a cause; a timeless, spaceless, changeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginingless, extremely powerful, personal being: God.

Enter this debate if you object to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
HikaruRose

Con

Well, a more precise version of the Kalam Cosmological Thesis is whatever begins to exist, has a physical cause. However, if the universe is understood to include all physical things, then it seems obvious that it as a whole cannot have a physical cause. As applying it to the entire universe seems all but doubtful in my eyes as I have excellent reason why that is.

I. It illustrates how problematic it may be to extend any principle from a part to a whole. This is a mistake sufficiently well known as the fallacy of composition.

i. Even if every physical thing has a cause, it doesn't follow that the entirety of physical things has a cause.

II. To make things more simple, we need to separate between our local universe, for which there is some evidence of the 'big bang' occurring over 13.7 billion years ago, and the global universe, otherwise known as all physical things.

ii. Even if our local universe did actually begin in the big bang, it's entirely possible to have a physical cause. However, there's no contradiction that the global universe is infinite in the past even if the local universe is not.
Debate Round No. 1
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I thank Con for entering this debate. I look forward to defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Rebuttal:

"if the universe is understood to include all physical things, then it seems obvious that it as a whole cannot have a physical cause."

God isn't physical, first of all (I believe). 2nd, How would you propose the whole universe has always existed, and where is the infinite energy coming from?

"Even if every physical thing has a cause, it doesn't follow that the entirety of physical things has a cause."

Such as? We can clearly see that anything could not pop up from nothing. If bicycles, pianos, Tom Hanks, and Charizards were able to pop up, why don't they? There's sufficient evidence proving the Universe began to exist, especially the fact that we're running out of usable energy. If the Universe always existed, we'd be out of usable energy by now, like I said in round 1.

If Con can explain how the Universe always existed, or that it just popped out of nothing, please do.

"we need to separate between our local universe, for which there is some evidence of the 'big bang' occurring over 13.7 billion years ago" There is proof. "and the global universe, otherwise known as all physical things." Which couldn't have always existed.

"there's no contradiction that the global universe is infinite in the past even if the local universe is not."

Can you back this up? As far as I'm concerned, what proof is there to doubt the "Global Universe" is finite? The Universe that humanity explored may not be the entirety of the Global Universe, but why assume it is infinite? The Local Universe has been proven to have began to exist via energy shortage. If the Global Universe always existed, wouldn't there also be an energy problem?

I await my opponent's response.
HikaruRose

Con

HikaruRose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
PowerPikachu21

Pro

Hmm... Okay, here's how round 3 will go:

Con will attempt to defend her objection in Round 3. If the voters think this is sufficient enough to debunk the Kalam Argument, you can vote her, but give a clear reason why her objection was valid. If she forfeits, the win goes to me. If her defense isn't sufficient, say why in your vote.

With that, let's see what happens!
HikaruRose

Con

HikaruRose forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by PowerPikachu21 12 months ago
PowerPikachu21
@thevanthi.t Well, humans aren't perfect, so could not create a perfect world, but also we didn't exist back then, and can not create ourselves out of nothing.
Posted by thevanthi.t 12 months ago
thevanthi.t
Everything in this world has to come from somewhere. I t can't randomly fall out of the sky is it! Everything around is perfect: the natural weather cycle, organisms, animals and even humans. We people can't have made this world as we are not perfect and obviously there is some one or something above us who controls all this. This someone may be called God.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 11 months ago
Midnight1131
PowerPikachu21HikaruRoseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF