The Instigator
derogatory
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
MasterDebated
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Kalam cosmological argument

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 3 votes the winner is...
derogatory
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 402 times Debate No: 52645
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

derogatory

Pro

KCA

Classical 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.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm arguing this to be true - first round is for acceptance.


MasterDebated

Con

Let's hear it.
Debate Round No. 1
derogatory

Pro

The Universe has a beginning of its existence

I will start with the second premise and return to the first after addressing this issue.

Firstly, I would like to ask, what could be inferred by a universe with no beginnings? the most obvious answer is either one of two cases, either it does not exist or it's existence is infinite and thus no need for creation. Now let us assume the universe is in fact infinite, then we need to next define what the universe is.

Universe:

1) All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.


This definition states that the universe is the sum of the matter, space and energy which exists. If the universe is infinite then by extension, space and matter are infinite because the universe exists due to there being space and matter. So now space and matter have no cause and equally as time is intricately intertwined with these two ___ then time would have no cause and more specifically no origin. If time has no origin then us as humans would not feel the effects of time as it is infinite and so there is no differentiating between the past present and future if everything is infinite. Reductio Ad absurdum thus the universe is not infinite.


Everything that has a beginning of existence has a cause of existence

Everything which we know has existed has also had a cause so this needs to be proved untrue for the case of the universe

The universe has a cause of its existence.

from premise two, there are two possibilities which are:

1. the universe has a cause to its existence.
and
2. the universe has existed but has no cause

possibility 2 leads us into thinking the universe either created itself, or that it is infinite (which I have already showed to not be possible). Now I will provide insight into why the universe couldn't of created itself. IF the universe created itself then it would mean that it would of existed before it even created itself and so it could not of created itself and thus possibility one must be true
and hence the universe has a cause of existence.

Sources:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...


MasterDebated

Con

Interesting argument.

You've given reason to believe that the universal isn't eternal (which I don't believe it is) but how do you know that the cause of the universe wasn't uncaused?

The cause could've been from something uncaused. How many example of universe creation do we have except our own? We've never observed that the beginning of the universe required a cause. Quantum physics explains how things appear from nothing like virtual particles and quantum tunneling. You can't be certain that an uncaused cause, such as these phenomena, couldn't have been responsible.
Debate Round No. 2
derogatory

Pro

Quantum Physics

The phenomenon of quantum tunnelling is based on the fact something can be everywhere at once until it is observed and collapses into a single point, however this requires there to to be something - the same principle applies for virtual particles, there existence is based of something. In addition to this quantum physics came about as a result of the existence of the universe, there are no laws in absolute nothingness.


"How many example of universe creation do we have except our own?"

We assume a scenario until it is proved untrue in this situation the Universe is assumed to have been caused as is the case for all things with existence and we assume this scenario as it is the most logical possibility.
MasterDebated

Con

I'm still not convinced. You said that there must be "something" for quantum particles and quantum tunneling to occur but didn't elaborate on what that "something" is. These particles come from basically nothing. How do we know the universe couldn't have came about the same way - from nothing? I don't see the need to accept the Kalam argument.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by POPOO5560 2 years ago
POPOO5560
Quantum physics doesnt explains how things appear from "nothing", nothing here (Quantum physics) is some sort of energy, is not nothing like 0.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
Do you just want to demonstrate a first cause or a God?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
derogatoryMasterDebatedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided a reasonable argument with quantum physics, but, provided no source for verification, Pro did not answer the quantum contention correctly, also Pro's assumptions were priori and not backed by the evidence in sources. Such as if time was infinite, which it truly is, we only experience local time, so infinite time would not create absurdities.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
derogatoryMasterDebatedTied
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: pro used sources, and con was just like "I'm not convinced".
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
derogatoryMasterDebatedTied
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: It is my opinion that, on the whole, pro provided the better argument. He established his arguments, and refuted con's counter argument. Additionally on Pro used any sources. In the future, both of you need to better substantiate your arguments.