Debate Rounds (4)
The kalam cosmological argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe had a cause
P1: Have you ever seen anything come into existence without a cause? A horse? Root beer? Pepsi? Computers? No. Why? Because this doesn't happen in reality. It defies all of logic to think that something can come into existence without a cause. Now, Lawrence Krauss has said that subatomic particles come into being without a cause. However, this just isn't true. They are caused from energy in a quantum vacuum. Krauss is re defining nothing to mean the quantum vacuum. Nothing in the English language is non existence. The quantum vacuum is a pool of energy and matter, and particles, and light. That isn't nothing.
P2: Atheists have attempted to say that the universe is eternal, however, this just isn't possible anymore. We have pretty strong evidence that the universe began to exist. For example, the universe is expanding, which means it had to have come into being from a point in the finite past. Now, many atheists have said that the universe came into existence from a huge explosion 13.7 billion years ago, in an event known as the big bang. Now, what makes the big bang so interesting is that it says the universe came from nothing and by nothing. But that doesn't make sense, out of nothing, nothing comes. After all, premise one shows that whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
Conclusion: Now that we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe did begin to exist, it follows that the universe had a cause. What must that cause be? It must be: timeless, and spaceless, since time and space didn't exist before the origin of the universe. It must be immaterial, since anything beyond space can't be physical. It must be powerful, since it created the universe with no materials, it must also be personal, since the only things which can exist outside of time and space are minds, or abstract objects. But, abstract objects can't cause anything.
A fine tuned universe: Scientists have been shocked by the fact that the conditions of the universe have been finely tuned for life to exist. To give an example of this, if the rate of expansion of the big bang was changed by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 life wouldn't"t exist. If the atomic weak force was changed by 2% life wouldn't"t exist. This fine tuning can only be due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. Now, it can"t be due to physical necessity, because the physical constants are independent of the laws of nature. Now, could it be due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds of the fine tuning occurring by chance is so incomprehensibly great that they can"t be reasonably faced. It is more likely that the stars will arrange themselves tonight to spell your name, then for the fine tuning to have occurred by chance. Thus, this gives us a designer of the universe.
Humans have the ability to see and appreciate beauty in all areas of life. This ability does not have its roots in evolution, for evolution is driven by survival, and the ability to see and appreciate beauty is not necessary for survival. Since the origins of beauty are not to be found in nature, we must look above and beyond nature (to the divine) to explain it.
Humans have the ability to behave morally. Scientists have put this down to our genes behaving selfishly, doing things because of such tactics as the belief in reciprocal benefits the subject and the object helped by the subject, good behavior towards one"s family to ensure the survival of one"s genes. These theories fly in the face of evidence that this is not what encourages most decent people to behave morally. Moral behavior of humans cannot be explained in evolutionary terms, so we must again look beyond the natural world to find our answer for it. Also, moral behavior is exactly what we would expect if God existed.
The resurrection of Jesus: Many people may say that the resurrection of Jesus is something I just believe in; by faith. But there are historical facts which I believe to be best explained by Jesus' resurrection. For example, there were many people at that time who believed Jesus rose from the dead. Most of these people were Jews and Pagans, but Jews and Pagans had no reason to believe this claim. Jews don't believe in an afterlife, and pagans didn't agree with the idea of resurrections. Also, Jesus' tomb was discovered empty; by a group of his women followers.
No, I have not seen anything come into existence without a cause, but what I have seen or what every other human have seen to the scope of the universe, is not much. The universe may have a cause or may not have a cause, and because our knowledge of the universe is so limited, the only logical way to address this issue is one of ignorance. The only rational answer to the question,"did the universe have a cause," is "i don't know."
Now, if the universe did have a cause, saying that an abstract idea like God is the causator would justify granting another abstract idea that is omnipotent but not conscious like a God could be a causator too. Just because history has given the abstract idea of a God predominance over other abstract ideas, it does not mean that other abstract ideas can be the cause of this universe. Again, the only rational way to respond to this issue is, "We don't have the knowledge to adress this issue, so we don't absolutely know."
Now, many people like to justify a deity because of the lack of knowledge humanity has in the scope of the universe; that, since we're incapable of explaining the whole universe, a God must have done it. Repeatedly, I say, the only rational way of explaining the unknown is with ignorance, saying "i don't know" is most logical. However, if one finds himself intelligible enough to grant the cause of the universe to God, he must give absolute and demonstrable proof, and since absolute proof has not been found in any case over the course of human history, it is UNREASONABLE to believe in such things.
The thing with belief in Atheists is that their beliefs are subject to the knowledge; that from time to time, they will be wrong, but they will adjust with new information and new data accordingly, and can give rational explanations for the things we can absolutely and demonstrably prove. The Big Bang is only a model that is based on the data and research humans have observed. It is more reasonable to believe in that which complies with data, but we also understand that it is subject to change. What theists, like to do, on the other hand, is that their beliefs are subject to what we cannot absolutely and demonstably prove, and justify that something did it, which is unreasonable.
The universe may or may not have a cause; we don't know. Also, if it were the case that the universe had a cause, an infinite number of abstract ideas can be the cause of it.
(My case in example: An abstract idea that is omnipotent but not conscious and is not identifiable as a single object like a God)
Beauty? Humans do not have an essential need to recognize beauty, which you have stated, so therefore, it is not an objective obligation to look beyond nature for beauty. Also, I'm confused how there is correlation between God and beauty.
"Moral behavior of humans cannot be explained in evolutionary terms." Are you sure about that? How do you explain why a mother bear cares for her young? How do you explain that when you throw a chunk of meat in a tank full of piranhas they'll devour it, but they'll never eat each other. Why do wolves hunt in packs? Why don't they eat each other? Where do their moral obligations come from? It seems to me that our search for moral obligations does actually stem from nature.
There also have been historical facts that egyptians never enslaved the Israelites. The eygptians, who were ahead of their time in keeping records, have no records of ever enslaving the Israelites which is said to comprise 1/3 of the Egyptian population at that time.
You can keep going and make claims or list witnesses of the supernatural to justify the existence of a God, but if you do not have absolute and demonstrable proof of this being and his works, It would be unreasonable for a skeptic to believe in you, and rationally so. Furthermore, if you are unable to absolutely and demonstrably prove to yourself that this being exists, but have your belief system totally based on claims, then you have some thinking to do.
tala00131 forfeited this round.
tala00131 forfeited this round.
fnarkchang forfeited this round.
tala00131 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.