The Instigator
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Kalam Sucks Butt

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...
philochristos
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,772 times Debate No: 31623
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

Anti-atheist

Con

Does the kalam such butt? Ima say NO WAY!!

Argument

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:

There was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature"something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:
*spaceless because it created space
*timeless because it created time
*immaterial because it created matter
*powerful because it created out of nothing
*intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
*personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect?

(5) God exists.
philochristos

Pro

Devil's adovcate

There was a time when I thought the KCA made God's existence virtually certain. Both premises seemed about as certain as it's possible to be, and the conclusion followed necessarily from the premises. I used to assign a 98% or 99% certainty of God's existence, leaving room only for the possibility that there was something I hadn't thought of.

Although I still lean in favor of the soundness of the KCA, I'm not as sure of it as I once was. There are some problems with it that are difficult to overcome, and I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about them. I'm going to use this debate to bring up some of those difficulties and see if or how my opponent can resolve them. I'll also throw in a few other arguments for filler and fun. So while some of the arguments I'll raise will be actual objections (or reservations) I have, I will be playing devil's advocate to some extent in this debate.

The resolution

The resolution is that the KCA "sucks butt." Of course no argument literally sucks butt, so I interpret the resolution to be a metaphor meaning that the KCA fails to prove what it claims, namely that the universe has a cause which is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, and personal, which is what Con claims follows from the universe having a cause.

Although Con didn't say so, I'm assuming the burden of proof is shared.

Structure

Since Con merely spelled out the logical form and premises of the argument, and the conclusions he draws from the argument, but he didn't attempt to defend any of the premises, I take it that it was not his intention for that to have been his opening statement. He was just telling us what the KCA was and what implications it had. So I'm using my first round for all these preliminaries. I'll make my actual arguments in subsequent rounds.

Rules

It's not my place to make rules since this is not my debate, so think of these more as requests or suggestions. I also request that Con say in the next round whether he agrees to them or not.

1. No new arguments in the last round except whatever arguments are necessary to refute what it said in previous rounds.

2. Burden of proof is shared. I must show that the KCA sucks butt, and Con must show that it does not suck butt.

3. Voters should vote on the content of the debate; not on your own opinions or arguments that you would like to have made; nor on whatever goes on in the comment section or elsewhere.
Debate Round No. 1
Anti-atheist

Con

The rules are fine

Argument

(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.
(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.

(1) This is self-evident a priori. Everything we see has a cause. Diaherra, football, pain, hitler, but we don't see stuff like food, root beer, robots, chickens, hitler come out of no where with no cause. Everyone hopes 1 is true. Otherwise we could start eating a sandwitch and posion can just appear. Atheists hope the premise isn't true, but they all want it to be true unknowingly. Its a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

(2) Theres good reasons for to believe this. Like this sub argument

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

If I told you that you can get a candy bar if you snap your fingers an infinite amount of time would you ever get the candy? Nope!

The available scientific evidence strongly suggests the universe has a finite past.

*The Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems suggest a universe with a finite past.

*The 2003 paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin suggests a universe with a finite
past.

An actual infinity can't exist, for it would lead to absurdities such as Hilbert's Hotel


(3) Follows from above

(4) There was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature"something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:
*spaceless because it created space
*timeless because it created time
*immaterial because it created matter
*powerful because it created out of nothing
*intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
*personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect?

(5) God exists. Follows
philochristos

Pro

I. The chief concern

If this argument is sound, then at some point, there had to have been a state of affairs in which God existed, but the universe did not. And since the universe is all of space, time, and energy, then this state of affairs must've been timeless.

The problem is that it doesn't seem possible for such a state of affairs to have been actual. The state of affairs could not have been before the beginning of the universe because the beginning of the universe marked the beginning of time, and there's no such thing as "before time."

But the state of affairs could not have been actual at any point from the beginning of the universe onward either because the universe and time existed from that point on.

If a timeless state of affairs in which God exists but the univeres doesn't could not have happened before the universe nor since the beginning of the universe, then that pretty much squeezes it right out of existence. The state of affairs is impossible.

So it is impossible for God to have been the creator of the universe. In fact, it would appear that it's impossible for the universe to have had any cause at all. It follows inescapably that "Kalam Sucks Butt."

If the universe had no cause, then either the first premise of the KCA is false, the second premise is false, they're both false, or there's a logical fallacy in there somewhere, and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

II. The fallacy of equiovcation

The KCA commits the fallacy of equivocation because the meaning of "beginning" differs from the first premise to the second premise.

Notice how Pro defends the first premise. He gives examples of things that begin to exist in the sense of there being a period of time in which the thing didn't exist followed by a time in which it does exist. Rootbeer, robots, and Rolaids® each come into existence in that sense.

But in the second premise, when it says the universe came into existence, it can't possible mean in that same sense. There was no time before the beginning of time, so there could not have been a state of affairs in which the universe did not exist followed by a state of affairs in which it did.

So the KCA commits the fallacy of quivocation and therefore sucks butt.

III. Problems with the first premise

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause to its existence.

Stated the way it is, this premise is false, which we know from counter-examples. For example, when Cobalt 60 undergoes beta minus decay, Nickel 60 comes into existence as well as a proton and an electron. A neutron ceases to exist as well as the Cobalt 60.[1] But there is no sufficient cause for these decay events. They are spontaneous events.[2] So the general principle spelled out by the first premise is false. That is why the KCA sucks butt.

Pro gave several examples of things that begin to exist with causes, but all it takes is one counter-example to falsify the general principle. At best, all pro is warranted in saying is that a lot of things that begin to exist have causes, but he cannot say that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Pro cites the conservation of mass as further evidence for the first premise, but the convervation of mass is demonstrably false since mass can be converted to energy. The convervation of mass only works as a thumb rule in problems in which no mass/energy conversions take place. Besides, if matter can neither be created nor destroy, then the universe obviously could not have been created. By claiming that God created the universe, Pro undermines his own argument.

IV. Problems with the second premise

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.

I agree with my opponent that the past is finite. However, Pro makes an unwarranted leap from "the past is finite" to "the universe had a beginning." The fact that this is an unwarranted leap is evident in the fact that God is excepted from this principle. You see, the KCA assumes an 'A' theory of time. That means the present is all that exists, and time is actually dynamic. The present is constantly changing in the future direction. Once the past is gone, it no longer exists, and the future does not yet exist.

If the 'A' theory if time is true, it would follow that God is temporal. The reason is because if the present is all that exists, and if God stands in any kind of relationship with the world, then God exists in the present. And tomorrow, God will also exist. So as time moves forward, so does God as long as God stands in some relation to the world.

If the past is finite, then not only has the universe existed for a finite period of time, but so has God. God's past cannot be infinitely long if time has not been infinite. God can only be as old as the universe.

If a beginning of time implied a beginning of the universe, then it would also imply a beginning of God. But then by Pro's reasoning, that would require that God had a cause, which is unacceptable.

William Lane Craig attempts to get around this by saying that "God must therefore be timeless without the universe and temporal with the universe."[3] (Notice he's careful not to say 'before' the universe.) If that's true, then that means it's possible for something to have a finite past without having a beginning. So it doesn't follow that because the universe had a finite past that it therefore must've also had a beginning.

Moreover, there's a sense in which the universe has always existed. "Always" implies, "for the entire duration of time." Since the earliest moment of time is synonymous with the earliest moment of the universe, then the universe has always existed. There was never a time when the universe did not exist.

V. The strangeness of the universe

Our intuitions appear to be suited to the macroscopic world in which we live. The further we delve into the subatomic world, the more counter-intuitive things become. Richard Feynman once said that "nobody understands quantum mechanics."[4] The problem isn't that it can't be mathematically described. The problem is that it can't be modeled or conceptualized. Quantum events appear to be spontaneous and a-causal. Entities can have both the properties of particles and the properties of waves. The strangeness of wave/particle duality is especially evident in the double-slit experiment.[5]

Things are strange on the macro-macro level, too. That is, on the scope of the entire universe. For example, we expect, from what we know about physics, that the expansion of the universe ought to be slowing down. But mysteriously, it is accelerating. There are currently no known physics to explain it. "Dark energy" is invoked as a place holder for the unknown. It essentially means "the I-know-not-what" that is causing the acceleration. The relationship between time, gravity, and motion on large scales are also very strange and counter-intuitive.

The strangeness of reality is inescapable. Time itself is strange. We know, by the law of excluded middle, that time either had a beginning, or it did not. Either scenario is extremely strange, so there's no escaping the strangeness. Since our intuitions do not serve us well on the boundaries and frontiers of physics, we have to admit that the beginning of the universe is a strange thing for which counter-intuitive possibliities ought to remain open. We ought to say that we don't know what actually happened rather than inferring, from our fallible intuitions, that "God did it."

Conclusion

Therefore, Kalam sucks butt.


*****

[1] http://atom.kaeri.re.kr...

[2] http://serc.carleton.edu...

[3] http://www.leaderu.com...

[4] http://bouman.chem.georgetown.edu...

[5] www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc





Debate Round No. 2
Anti-atheist

Con

False rebuttal I. The chief concern

This is a false dichotomy. God creating the universe is simultaneous with the
Big Bang and causation. Time as we know it is more than sequential events, it is a physical dimension. It is this physical dimension that began with the universe. Eternity would still have sequential events, but it is simply not time as we know it. In this sense there can be a cause before the time of our universe.



False rebuttal II. The fallacy of equiovcation

Your first example can be overriden by arguments for the finitude of the past. And the second example seems to be an accidental generalization like "Human beings have always lived in this solar system" and not metaphysically
true. Begin is just to come into being. It doesn't matter if its ex materal or ex nihlo. Everything in the universe has a relational attribute of the conservation. Due to conservation and post reaction everything must be caused. Post reaction is talking about a beginning in a pre cause sense. We see a post reaction com intro in the early universe. Meaning there must be a pre cause or pre causal relations in order to simulate the universe's existence (1). There was a state of affairs where the universe had a causeal law, therefore there must be a cause because the second the universe is in existence a causal effect is in existence. The cause must be God already proven


Failed rebuttal III. Problems with the first premise

First, his response assumes Quantum physics. That is false. QP can't handel the observations of Aero space particles. They spin in a way contradicting the prediction of QP. I know a lot about QP to disprove it. I have a huge understanding of Quantum Physics so much I know its false.

The causes of radioactive decay are part of your Quantum Physics. For example, Alpha decay is caused by an Alpha particle repeatedly hitting a potential barrier until it tunnels through. Just because we can't find the cause of an event does not mean there was no cause. Several interpretations of Quantum Physics provide a cause for all Quantum events, and those that do not, simply do not care what the cause is.

One possibility is that these events simply do not have a natural cause, but a supernatural cause as suggested by General intelligent design. In such a case, a search for a natural cause would fail to find one. But that does not mean there is no cause.

The conservation of mass does support p1. Mass beig converted to energy still has a cause being traviling at a high speed or more massafied particles (according to relativity which is false (2). Again the conservation was again at the same time as the creation of the universe. These things can't exsit forever due to the whare out law. Energy can't be forever because it would ware proven by Ann Tipler's Energy tests.

Philo getten onwed on IV. Problems with the second premise

Finite and beginning are the same. Something can't be finite and eternal. Its an abusredity. The a theory is correct as B theory says self refuting. B theory says time requires us to believe that our experience of change in the external world as well as within our own minds is wholly illusory. Both tenets are required to be believed if one wishes to hold to static time. However, If our changing experiences are themselves illusions, then we are experiencing a CHANGING ILLUSION, which is objective (or leads to a vicious infinite regress. Like, if that change is an illusion, then something's causing that illusion, and that illusion, and that illusion).

Therefore, the static theory of time is self-contradictory, therefore its wrong, and, therefore THE UNIVERSE HAS A CAUSE. Philo goes about how a theory refutes God. God is outside of time and therefore he can exist within it.

Philo crying on V. The strangeness of the universe

Philo says Kalam sucks butt because the universe is strange. Wow lets say other things like this. The universe is strange therefore Philos response to this is false. Philo doesn't exist its all in my head why because the universe is strange! QP is false anyway. None of this destroys the Kalam. The Kalam doesnt' suck butt because it succeds Its the ultimate argument no one can destroy it! God exists is fact of science more and more scientists are accepting this fact!

Vote me

(1) http://www.space.com...
(2) http://conservapedia.com...
philochristos

Pro

I. The chief concern

Pro may have misunderstood me on this point. I was questioning how it's possible for there to have been a state of affairs in which God existed but the universe did not since the state of affairs could not have been before the beginning of the universe, nor since the beginning of the universe. He answered with simultaneous causation. I don't have a problem with the notion of simultaneous causation, but I don't see what that has to do with my objection. If the cause and the effect are simultaneous, then both exist at the same time. But the question isn't how they could both exist at the same time; rather, the question is how God could exist without the universe since there was nothing before the universe.

II. The fallacy of equiovcation

I claimed that the KCA equivocates on the meaning of "beginning" because in the first premise, and in the examples to illustrate it, things begin to exist in the sense that there is a period of time in which they don't exist followed by a period of time in which they do exist. But in the second premise, there is no time prior to the universe in which the universe did not exist.

Pro responds by saying, "Begin is just to come into being." But he doesn't flesh that out. It's pretty clear what it would mean for a robot to come into being. And means the robot used to not exist, and now it does. But if there was no time before the earliest moment of the universe, then it's hard to give meaning to "come into being" when talking about the universe. The universe could not have "come into being" if there was never a time in which it didn't exist.

Some of the stuff Pro said in this part was incoherent, and he referenced an article which I read but which didn't say anything remotely like what Pro was saying.

III. Problems with the first premise

I gave two arguments against the first premise. First, I said that the radioactive decay of Cobalt 60 serves as a counter-example. Second, I said that the conservation of mass is not universally true since matter can be converted to energy, and vice versa.

In response to the first, Pro said quantum physics is false, and he knows it because he has a huge understanding of quantum physics. What does it even mean to say quantum physics is false? Does it mean there are no subatomic particles? Or does it mean subatomic particles don't really have the properties physicists tell us they do? I think we're going to need Pro to elaborate on this point and provide some evidence that is relevant to my counter-example. Unless he has a PhD in physics, I don't think we can take his word as expert testimony.

In reality, "Quantum mechanics is the most successful quantitative theory ever produced. Not a single one of the untold thousands of experiments done to test it has ever found the basic principles to be in error, and the agreement can sometimes go to ten significant figures (as in some predictions of quantum electrodynamics)."[1]

Pro mentions that several interpretations of QP provide a cause for all quantum events, but he doesn't tell us what those interpretations are, why we should believe them, or what the causes of seemingly undetermined events are. According to a poll in 1997, "the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics,"[2] and it is indeterministic.

Pro suggested that perhaps there are hidden causes we don't know about, but John Bell and others have shown that "there cannot be a local hidden variables model for quantum theory."[3]

Pro insists that the conservation of mass supports P1 even while admitting that mass can be converted to energy, so he is contradicting himself. Moreover, if the conservation of mass were a law that could not be violated, that would falsify P2.

IV. Problems with the second premise

Pro pretty much ignores my argument here. Instead, he affirms some of the premises of my argument. He says that the A theory of time is true and that "finite and beginning are the same." As I argued already, if the A theory is true, then God is temporal with the universe. That means that God's temporal duration is exactly the same as the temporal duration of the universe. And since "finite and beginning are the same," it would follow not only that the universe has a beginning, but that God has a beginning as well.

If Pro insists that God did not have a beginning, then he falsifies his claim that "finite and beginning are the same." It would not follow that just because the past is finite that the universe therefore had a beginning. Pro has yet to prove that the universe had a beginning. All he has done so far is to show that the universe is finite in the past. The universe has always existed because there was never a time in which the universe didn't exist. It just has a past boundary.

V. The strangeness of the universe

Pro fails to grasp the weight of my argument here. I argued that nature behaves in a counter-intuitive way on extremely small scales and extremely large scales. The beginning of the universe is surely a boundary of physics, which means we should not expect it to behave according to our ordinary intuitions. That means any argument we make about the nature of the beginning of the universe from our ordinary intuitions cannot carry much weight. We have to leave room for the wildly unexpected and counter-intuitive unkown.

VI. Personal and intelligent

Pro claims that the cause of the universe is "intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed," but he offers no evidence that it was designed. And in fact, to use the "design" of the universe as a premise in an argument for intelligence is circular reasoning because a "design" is an intentional plan. He needs to tell us why we should think anybody intended the universe to turn out like it did.

Pro claims the cause of the universe is "personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices)." He's right that impersonal forces don't make choices, but he hasn't given us any reason to think that choice was the cause of the beginning of the universe. He just asserts it.

He asks, "how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect?" Impersonal causes give rise to temporal effects all the time. For example, gravity causes the earth to stay in orbit around the sun. I suspect what he meant to ask was, "How can a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect?" After all, that's how Bill Craig poses the question. Pro needs to tell us what precisely the problem is and how agent causation solves the problem.

As I argued in I. The chief concern above, it's not possible for the universe to have a cause, whether personal or impersonal. The problem is precisely the notion of converting "a state of nothing into something." There was no state of affairs at all prior to the universe because there was no prior. So there was no conversion of a state of nothingness into something.

Conclusion

All of Pro's responses were inadequate. There were some incoherencies in there, he ignored some of my arguments, and he made unsubstantiated assertions. In addition to the five arguments I already made for why the KCA sucks butt, I have added a sixth in this round. That makes six good reasons to think the KCA sucks butt.



[1] http://www.astro.umd.edu... article doesn't have the author, but the author is Professor Coleman Miller of the Astronomy department of the University of Maryland.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.math.rutgers.edu...



Debate Round No. 3
Anti-atheist

Con

Pro's getten beat on I. The chief concern

Wow, Pro realy didn't answer me. He needs to read up on atemporal causation. If a ball rests on a sheet the ball caused a curve in the sheet even if the ball has been there forever! Its still casue. God is above laws and therefore can exist before the universe. If nothing existed before e universe, than whatever would havet to be in a vindictive vaccum to cause the universe. A vindictive vaccum would of destroyed the universe before being into existence [1].

Also geocentericm is true

Otherguy getting pwned II. The fallacy of equiovcation

It doesn't matter if it comes out of flesh or out of nothing! It;s still a cause!! You then ignored me! Everything in the universe has a relational attribute of the conservation. Due to conservation and post reaction everything must be caused. Post reaction is talking about a beginning in a pre cause sense. We see a post reaction com intro in the early universe. Meaning there must be a pre cause or pre causal relations in order to simulate the universe's existence. There was a state of affairs where the universe had a causeal law, therefore there must be a cause because the second the universe is in existence a causal effect is in existence. The cause must be God already proven

You ignoore this! Time can still have caus! WHy cant it?

Vote con in III. Problems with the first premise

Subatomic Particles do not exist! Pros argument here is just "I dont believe you therefore your wrong!" He say physics say im wrong therefore I am. Hes appealing to majority.

Scientists believe in fairies; they call them electrons. That"s just a language game, and we all know what Wittgenstein uncontroversially proved about language games.

Supposedly there are these magical little floating things and here are their essential properties:

1) We can"t see them
2) They hold everything together

That sounds to me a lot like fairies. And you might say, "Well, there are different types. Protons, electrons, etc. etc. quarks whatever." So the fairy creatures come in different races, so what? Now I"m not one to doubt the existence of fairies. Frankly I see no evidence of their non-existence and you can"t prove a negative. But let"s stop teaching that there is anything scientific about them. No one has ever even seen one, and noted anthropologist Sam Harris has explained that this is the key feature of myth. The subatomic world (actually Latin for "below the earth" " and where do fairies live exactly? yep.) is false as traditionally explained. And the diagrams shown to children are simply outrageous.

He doesn't refute the cause of decay! The Copenhagen interpretation has big flaws, but scienstist accept it becuase they don't want to believe in God! Copenhagen says the local quantu is equal to the distence of mass times C. This entails that the local quantu isn't subjected to the mass width of basic geometry!

John Bell assumed that quantum physics was a under a bypoled movement system. No evidence of that has ever been given

IV. Problems with the second premise

Pro fails to answer me here also V isn't relevant and VI is a new argument and is dirty trick

Just look around ul see inteligence! Only personal things can give choices there's nothing else that can do it! Pro fails vote me

[1] Douglas, Carl 2003 Vindictive vaccums and the early universe
philochristos

Pro

I. The chief concern

Pro says I didn't answer him, but I did. I dismissed his argument as irrelevant, and I explained why it was irrelevant. It continues to be him who has not answered me. A-temporal causation is irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that there could not have been a state of affairs in which God existed and the universe did not since the state of affairs could neither be temporally prior to the universe, nor temporal with the universe. Since this argument proves, not just that the universe happens to not have a cause, but that it's impossible for the universe to have a cause, we can have the highest confidence that Kalam sucks butt.

I was almost stumped by Pro's comment about geocentrism, but then I realized that's irrelevant, too. :-)

II. The fallacy of equiovcation

Con says, "It doesn't matter if it comes out of flesh or out of nothing! It;s still a cause!!," but I didn't claim the argument equivocated on the meaning of "cause." Rather, I claimed that the argument equivocated on "beginning." Con completely ignored my argument in the last round and went on to talk about causes and "conservation." I have already shown that the conservation of mass is not a universal law, and Con did not negate what I said. The rest of his comments about causation are irrelevant.

III. Problems with the first premise

Con's response here confirms something I have suspected about Con for a while. I have suspected that Con's whole persona on this web page is a hoax, or a spoof, or something. He's not being serious. His claims are too over the top.

He claims in this round that subatomic particles do not exist. Do I really need to prove that they do? Seriously? I have already provided sources, showing that there's a table of nuclides which spells out the various properties of different nuclides in different elements, their half lives, the kinds of decay they undergo, etc. I've also provided sources on the successes of quantum physics. So I think I've already carried my burden of proof on this issue.

Con accuses me of "appealing to majority," but I didn't make an appeal to majority. I made an appeal to expert authority.

Perhaps Con is making a parody against atheists who claim you can't know God exists because you can't directly perceive him with the senses. If so, then Con's paraody is a strawman, since I have not made any such argument in this debate.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's seriously trying to make an argument against subatomic particles. The response is simple. Although we do not observe subatomic particles directly, we do observe their effects, and their effects are consistent with the properties we ascribe to them. As I've pointed out before, quantum theory is confirmed by it's great predictive value.

While I provided sources showing that the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum physics among physcists (this is an argument from authority, not population), and that a "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum physics is not viable, and Con has only responded with assertions to the contrary, I think I have carried my burden of proof here as well. The original argument was that there were counter-examples to the universal causal principle, which undermines the first premise in Kalam.

Therefore, Kalam sucks butt.

IV. Problems with the second premise

Con's response here is ironic. He accuses me of ignoring him when, in fact, he is the one who ignored me. Originally, he claimed that since the universe is finite in the past, that it therefore had a beginning. I showed that his argument was a non-sequitur by making a reductio ad absurdum argument.

1. If something is finite in the past, then it has a beginning.
2. God is finite in the past.
3. Therefore, God has a beginning.

Con rejects 3, which forces him, on pain of contradiction, to reject 1. Rejecting 1 undermines the premise upon which he argued that the universe had a beginning. I gave an argument for 2 which he ignored, so he cannot reject 2. He must reject 1. And if he rejects 1, then he needed to give further arguments for why we should think the universe had a beginning just because it is finite in the past. He never attempted to do that, so his burden of proof is unmet. I have offered an undercutting defeater to his second premise which he was unable to overcome.

V. The strangeness of the universe

Con says, "V isn't relevant," so I guess it's up to the voters to decide.

VI. Personal and Intelligent

Con says, "VI is a new argument and is dirty trick." But it's not a dirty trick because I didn't offer the new argument in the last round. I offered it during the rebuttal period. That's perfect acceptable because he had the opportunity to refute it.

Unfortunately, he turned that opportunity down. All he had to say was, "Just look around ul see inteligence! Only personal things can give choices there's nothing else that can do it!" I submit that this does not even rise to the level of argument, so I just re-affirm what I said in the last round.

Conclusion

I have refuted all of Con's arguments for the KCA, and I have shown that the KCA sucks butt.

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Please vote.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
Hello sir! It's been a while!^^,

>>I thought you gave a pretty good analysis of the debate.<<

Thanks! I think I can now be confident that I, at least, understood all your arguments!

>>The only part I seriously disagreed with was you thinking I ought to lose a point for using an argument from authority.<<

As what I've thought!hehe.. Actually, this is also the only part where I doubt what I am saying!;'b

>>Arguments from authority are not fallacious as long as the authority you cite is actually an expert on the subject.<<

Ahm.. this seems just a tautology sir ("Authority", as I always thought, = "expert on the subject)"!hehe.. Thus, seems begging the question against the fallacy of arguments from authority.

>>There would be no point in using sources if we couldn't appeal to authorities.<<

I always thought that the point of sources/authority are specifically to gather/summon sound/strong *arguments*. Indeed, that is, or should be if isn't, what makes someone to be an "authority". That is, I think, sources/authority/names are useful for their *arguments* not their *conclusions*, which, as far as I see, your sources only, or can only possibly, gave (conclusions).

Though, I might be missing something, if not everything!;'b

In any ways, thanks for your response!^^,
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
I thought you gave a pretty good analysis of the debate. The only part I seriously disagreed with was you thinking I ought to lose a point for using an argument from authority. Arguments from authority are not fallacious as long as the authority you cite is actually an expert on the subject. There would be no point in using sources if we couldn't appeal to authorities.
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
>>The "thanks for your detailed comments" was directed at you. The "It was another disappointing voter turn out" was a commentary on the fact that only one person voted on this debate. I don't blame you for not voting, of course. You said you didn't have voting privileges yet. I was just expressing my disappointment that more people didn't vote.<<

Oh I see!^^, Sorry for a low English understanding, for I'm foreign!hehe

Any ways, what do you think about my analysis? Did I catch all the relevant points? Did I see it fairly? Do you disagree on anything I've said?

Thanks!^^,
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
The "thanks for your detailed comments" was directed at you. The "It was another disappointing voter turn out" was a commentary on the fact that only one person voted on this debate. I don't blame you for not voting, of course. You said you didn't have voting privileges yet. I was just expressing my disappointment that more people didn't vote.
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
>>YouShallKnow, thanks for your detail comments. It was another disappointing voter turn out. :-(<<

Hi Philocristos!='j

Ahm, what do you mean by this sir? Is it referring to me? Was my analysis disappointing? Why?

I would be happy to know where I err, so please point me those!

Thanks!^^,
Posted by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
YouShallKnow, thanks for your detail comments. It was another disappointing voter turn out. :-(
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
VI. Personal and intelligent

Here Philocristos attacked another vulnerable point of the KCA, namely the bridge between the cause of the beginning of the universe and God. He pointed out that all the three points Anti-Atheists asserted as support for this bridging, namely, Design, Volition, and The Impossibility of Eternal Mechanistic Causation, were all either question begging or unargued.

Anti-Aheists here cries foul, but unjustifiably. Philocristos didn't violate any rule of conduct, for it isn't the last round, and he can still respond to it, but he didn't. So it must be justly counted as a concession. Though, as Philocristos have said, his point here, though a strong criticism, isn't even necessary given his enduring attack against the very possibility of causing the universe into existence.

Hence, all points here to Philocristos.

And so, given the reasons above, I would give my argument vote (if only I could!;'b) to Philocristos!^^,

And it's 1.5AM here and I have to sleep! I didn't expect that this would be this long (that which perhaps render it improbable of being read!hehe.. But it's ok, it benefits me in any way!^^,)

Have a good day/night everyone!
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
V. The strangeness of the universe

He Philocristos gave reasons for the strangeness of the universe by giving some counter-intuitiveness
facts, including the Antinomy of Time. He then made the point that applying our intuition outside the
boundaries of universe & time would be moot.

Anti-Atheists response here is to mock, "Philo says Kalam sucks butt because the universe is strange.
Wow lets say other things like this. The universe is strange therefore Philos response to this is false.
Philo doesn't exist its all in my head why because the universe is strange!" But this is a mischaracterization of the argument! Philocristos does not deduce "Kalam is therefore unsound" from the mere strangeness of the universe, it's just that we cannot apply our intuitions beyond the boundary of the intuitive.

But yap, I found Philocristos argument here somewhat going backward. I think he has argued strong enough an objection for the conclusions "Therefore the universe does cannot have a beginning" (paraphrase), and, "If God didn't begin to exists with his past finitude, why would the universe be?" (paraphrase) just to argue for a weaker "our intuitions aren't justified in applying it beyond space-time".

I think what he wants to do is to prepare us in accepting the counter-intuitive implications of his unanswered arguments, namely, that time is past-finite, but it cannot be caused to exists, for it cannot "begin" in the common sense of the term.

Anyways, all points again to Philocristos.
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
IV. Problem with the second premise

Here, Philocristos granted the finitude of the past, but deny the beginning of it. He manage to made this two claims consistent by denying the notion that finite past=beginning. He made basically two arguments for his case.

His first argument for this inequality is the Theist's necessary affirmation of it. Since God is now in time, He must also have a finite past. Hence, if finite past=beginning, then God must have a beginning. But God doesn't have a beginning even His past is finite, therefore, it is possible that something does have a finite past without having a beginning, hence inequality follows. And since the inequality of finite past and beginning was established, insisting that the universe must have a beginning because it has a finite past cannot be sufficient, it requires further argument/s lest it becomes another Special Pleading.

His second argument, is again based on his central thesis, which is the notion that "beginning implies
prior time of non-existence" (paraphrase). Given this, the universe cannot, even in principle, begin to exist.

Anti-Atheists' only response was to beg the question! He just replied "Finite and beginning are the same. Something can't be finite and eternal. Its an abusredity." But that's the whole question my friend, and to which Philocristos made his arguments for! Anti-Atheists didn't address any premises of Philocristos argument, he even affirms one (the A-Theory), but just dismissed the conclusion as "an absurdity". But unfortunately (and thankfully!), disagreement isn't similar to refutation.

Hence, all points to Philocristos.

TBC..
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
IIIb. Problems with the first premise

Also, Anti-Theist pointed out that Philocristos' arguments here (as it were commonly) are all Appeal
to Authority (as I think what he means by "majority"). Philocristos just admitted it, which I think
should be a point against him, for I think that approach shouldn't be accepted in formal philosophical
debates (though, yap, I agree that arguing for such complex scientific theories would unviably require
a lot of space, but, I think that's just the price of a genuine refutation, not mere "experts" names,
which are possible to be mistaken). And, while pointing this out, he also manage to respond to those
expert quotation, though, due to the limitation of my knowledge on QM, I can't evaluate if who is
closer to the Truth.

Lastly, on Anti-Atheist's "Fairy Parody", Philocristos have refuted such an argument, and that which
would, anyway, go against him if wasn't addressed (it's a parallel)!

All in all, I think I have to give Anti-Theist a point here, since Philocristos have the burden
of showing the P1 false, which means just one defense would do otherwise, and I think the 2 distinction said above, one unaddressed (natural-supernatural causation) and one not shown to be false, but by an appeal toauthority (epistemologically-ontologically uncaused distinction) do. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that these are, even in principle, unfalsifiable!;'b

TBC..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Anti-atheistphilochristosTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote arguments because philochristos arguments seemed stronger on all points. Con's assertion that he has a "huge understanding" of quantum physics shortly after Pro's Feynmen quote that "nobody understand quantum physicss" is comical, especially without any substantiation. I've read Feynmen, and he almost certaintly grasped it better than us. I also dock Con on spelling for quite a few errors.