Kalam Cosmological Argument
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
"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 forfeited this round.
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 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.