The Instigator
Pennington
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
phantom
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Smithereens Religious Tourney Rd.1 KCA is sound!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,563 times Debate No: 33183
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

Pennington

Pro

I would like to start by thanking Smithereens for starting this tournament. I would also like to thank Phantom for participating. Good luck. I would also like to extend my thanks to all the readers.

Resolution: Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound!

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

BOP:

In this debate both Pro and Con assume the Burden of Proof. Pro has the burden of showing the Kalam Argument is sound in theory and likewise Con shall have the burden showing the Kalam Argument is not sound in theory. It is up to myself as Pro to give the Kalam Argument presentation and why it is sound. It is up to Con to poke holes in that Argument while also providing further reason why the argument is not sound.

Definitions:

I shall now provide definitions that may be necessary in this debate.

Kalam Cosmological Argument - The Kalam Cosmological Argument or First Cause Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God which explains that everything has a cause, that there must have been a first cause, and that this first cause was itself uncaused.http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...

Sound - (D)- Logically valid and having true premises. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

a priori- knowledge or justification independent of experience.

a posteriori Reasoning - knowledge or justification dependent of experience or empirical evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

First Cause - the self-creating cause to which every chain of causes must ultimately go back.

http://www.britannica.com...

Contingent Existence - dependent for existence.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Deductive reasoning - links premises with conclusions. If all premises are true, the terms clear, and all rules are followed, the conclusion reached is necessarily true.

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

A & B series of time - Philosophers of time have two broad views of time, which are the A & B series. In the A-series of time there is a real difference between past, present, and future. The B-series of time says that there is not really any difference in the past, present, and future. http://en.wikipedia.org......

Zeno's Paradox - Zeno's arguments are perhaps the first examples of a method of proof called reductio ad absurdum also known as proof by contradiction. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes

Grim Reaper paradox - A
n argument for the discrete character of time.
(p) for every time t later than 8 am, at least one of the Grim Reapers woke up strictly between 8 am and t. http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com...

Rules:

I think it would be wise to give a few rules here.

1) No forfeited round is allowed. If any round are forfeited by either debater then that debater shall forfeit the Conduct and Argument points.

2) All sources and links shall be viewable for both debaters and readers. If either debater needs extra space for sources or links then they may post them in the comments section or an alternate source. If either debater does not follow this rule then that debater shall lose the source points.

3) No semantics or trolling allowed. If either debater chooses to act as a troll or argues with semantics then that debater shall lose conduct and argument points.

4) Any dropped points by either debater shall be viewed as a concession.

Rounds:

1) Round one is for acceptance only.

2) The second round is for Pro to present his argument. Con shall also present a argument in round 2 or Con can choose to just rebuttal Pro.

3) The third round is for adding more arguments and to rebuttal previous arguments.

4) The last round is for closing rebuttals and a summation. No new arguments may be introduced. If any new arguments are introduced in the final round, that debater shall lose conduct and source points.

Again, I wish my opponent a good luck and await their acceptance.

phantom

Con

I accept and look forward to the exchange.

I ask in advance that all voters read the debate as a whole and set their biases aside when they judge. I'm sure pro won't have any issue with that request.

Good luck to my opponent.


Debate Round No. 1
Pennington

Pro

Thank you Phantom for your acceptance. This is the first round of Smithereens religious tournament. We are debating that the KCA argument is sound and I am Pro.

The Kalam Cosmological argument as a basic argument is as follows:

KCA

The Basic Argument

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

2. The universe began to exist. i.e., the temporal regress of events is finite.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.[1]

Deductive reasoning[2] is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements(premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion. This is what the KCA is, deductive reasoning.

My Burden of proof here is to show that both premises are true and the third follows. I must show whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, things are finite and a first cause began the universe follows. The Kalam Cosmological Argument depends upon the A-Theory of time being true over the B-Theory of time so I must defend the A-Theory of time.

Finite time

A & B-Series of Time

Philosophers have two views of time, which are the A & B series.[2] In the A-series of time there is a real difference between past, present, and future. To be temporal means you come into existence and go out of existence. This is the common sense view of time, almost everyone has this view. The B-series of time says that there is not really any difference in the past, present, and future. It says that the past, present, and future are all equally real. It further says that things in the past have not vanished into non-being and are still as real today as yesterday. The difference in these theories is that, B-series states, "there is no temporal beginnings." In this theory nothing comes in and out of being, they are just real. But we can add another consideration like Zeno's Paradox which supports finite time as supported by the A-series.

Zeno's Paradox

It is impossible to have an actually infinite number of things.[3]

Zeno shows that in order to catch up to the future, one must first arrive at the point where the present and past is.

If (t) is at 2 then (A) must traverse 1 to catch up.

If (t) is at 3 then (A) must traverse 2 to catch up.

If (t) is at 4 then (A) must traverse 3 to catch up.........

Zeno's paradox shows that there cannot really be an actual infinite. These considerations rationally force us to suppose that an actual infinite is just an idea in the mind and not something that exists as a property in reality. We can consider another paradox that shows things are not finite called the Grim Reaper paradox.

Grim Reaper paradox

The Grim Reaper paradox[4] suggests not only that no finite time period can be divided into infinitely many sub-periods but also that it is impossible that there should exist infinitely many time periods, all of which are earlier than some event.

We can reconstruct the argument, assuming H2 -- Possible Infinite Past with Infinitely Many Parts -- as the hypothesis for reductio. This argument proves the negation of H2, namely, that the past is necessarily finite in its number of parts:

H2. Possible Infinite Past, with Infinitely Many Parts (PIPIP). There is a possible world W and a region R and time t of W such R has a temporal part wholly earlier than d units before t, for every finite interval d.

H3. Possible Quantitatively Infinite Past (PQIP). There is a possible world W, and a region R and time t of W such that R is wholly earlier than t, and R has infinite duration.

H4. No Simple Infinite Past. No space time region can have an infinite duration without having infinitely many proper parts or overlapping an infinite series of temporally finite and temporally disjoint regions.


Big Bang Theory

I offer the Big-Bang theory as the start of our universe and opposing infinity. The Big Bang theory[5] is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the universe. According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.79 billion years ago which is thus considered the age of the universe. Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields a singularity finite time in the past. This singularity is sometimes called "the Big Bang", but the term can also refer to the "birth" of our Universe.

Begins to exist has a cause

God has no cause. In order to have an explanation of a event, you don't have to have the explanation of the explanation.[6] God was not created therefore He needs no creator. If my opponent refers to the universe as infinite then He can comprehend that God is infinite.

The first premise in the KCA is the Principle of Sufficient Reason.[4] The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a principle that everything must have a reason for coming into existence. It is reasonable to accept this premise as true because we do not see things coming into existence without reason. The second premise from the metaphysical Principle Ex Nihilo Fit,[6] we see that the universe could not come from nothing. These premises are strongly supported by our intuition and our experience.

Summation

I have given reason to believe things have a reason for their existence. I have given reason why the universe has to have a beginning. I have supported the A-series of time which is a hinge for the KCA. I brought forth the Big-Bang to show that the universe did have a beginning. I provided evidence that the first two premises of the KCA appear true and the conclusion follows. The KCA is sound.

I send it back to Con.

RESOURCES:

[1]

http://plato.stanford.edu.........

[2]

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

[3]

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

[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org......'s_paradoxes

[5] http://www.robkoons.net...

[6]

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

[7]

http://www.godandscience.org......

[8]

http://plato.stanford.edu......

[9]

http://www9.georgetown.edu......

phantom

Con

"The Universe Began to Exist"

"Time"

I'll agree with pro on time being finite. I will, however, note that pro has not made an argument against infinity in general. He's only attacking an infinity in time.


"Big-Bang"

I do, of course, agree with the Big-Bang.


=Pro's arguments are both a non sequitur=

Pro hasn't actually made an argument for P.2. The big bang theory does not necessarily mark the beginning of the universe and a finitude of time doesn't say anything about whether the universe began to exist either, as I'll explain. By universe, I assume we mean all matter and energy, at least that we see around us. None of my opponents arguments have proved any matter and energy have begun to exist.

I'll start with the big bang since it's less contentiousness. Nothing about the big bang theory says anything began to exist. The theory doesn't go anywhere before the singularity [1]. It's just a theory of how our universe came to be as it is. There are theories, such as the oscillating universe theory, which posits the big bang was not the start. According to this theory, when our universe collapses, it will result in another big bang, like the one that happened 13.8 billion years ago [2]. The theory states that our big bang could have been the nth cycle of this collapse and inflation. I'm not making an argument for the theory. I'm simply pointing out that the big bang in no way points to the beginning of the universe, just the universe as we know it.

The finitude of time also does not prove the universe began to exist. If this seems puzzling at first, I'm sure it soon won't be. We observe around us one dimension of time and three dimensions of space. It's obvious that both types of dimensions make up our universe. However, my opponent has only made an argument that the dimension of time has begun to exist. He hasn't stated anything about the dimensions of space. Time may very well have begun to exist, but that does not point to space having had a start. I'm not going to pretend to know what space looks like without time, but simply because we're so used to time and space both existing around us, does not mean their existence is contingent on each other. Time began to exist. Very well. That does not mean the dimensions of space began. We have at least 4 dimensions that make up the universe as we see it. Pro's only proven one has had a beginning.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

Pro has done almost no job in defending this premise.

My opponent defends this premise by way of the principle of sufficient reason. Unfortunately I see for little reason to hold this view and hardly any given by pro. Off the bat I could just point out that, we haven't see anything come into existence except ex materia and everything we experience is only in this universe. The beginning of the universe is completely separate from anything we experience. Does pro really think relying on an intuition that exists in us due to millions of years of creatures seeing the world as it was in practical everyday life, is a sound argument for parts of reality separate from all we have experienced? There's a reason science can be so awe inspiring. It presents us with facts about the world completely separate from our everyday intuition, which evolved from creatures never presented with anything beyond everyday experience. The beginning of the universe was an astronomically profound event no matter what the explanation is and just reverting to intuition is quite frankly an embarrassing way to deal with it.


Pro should show how everyday intuition is something to be relied upon in matters such as these. Now of course, we can, by intuition, find it absurd to conceive of objects randomly beginning to exist out of thing air, but the laws that govern everyday experience, do not necessarily apply to before the universe. That seems almost self-evident to me. The laws of the universe govern the universe. It doesn't mean they govern what's outside the universe and the beginning of it.


There is also literally no empirical evidence that supports this premise. Quite the opposite actually. First, it's empirically impossible to verify it since it's a universal statement about nature that would require deductive proof. If we said all cats are black, that would be unverifiable since there would always be more cats to examine to see if they're black and nothing about the notion of "cat" entails "black". In the same way, nothing about the notion of things beginning to exist entails reason for existence. So it is therefore an empirical statement, but cannot be verified a posteriori since it's universal and unable to be proven by deductive argument. Even if all we observed had a cause, there's still much we haven't observed, so no a posteriori evidence can be presented to this statement of nature.


Quite importantly, we can also, and if I may too boldly say, without much dispute, deduce that "out of nothing, nothing comes", is a senseless principle. "Nothing" is the absence of everything, therefore, also absent from logic. No logical laws can be applied to "nothing" so you cannot say that nothing can come from nothing. It does entail contradictions such as that nothing has no potential to become something yet also can become something, but as laws of logic don't apply to "nothing" that's entirely fine.


As stated, experience can be used to invalidate the claim. Now, we have not observed anything begin to exist except ex-materia, but in this realm, we do observe things acting random and contradictory to the principle of sufficient reason. On the quantum realm, all everyday intuition is let go. Things happen at random. Nothing is predictable. Probabilities exist but not inevitability like in the normal realm of life and Newtonian physics. Things happen uncaused all the time. The appearance of "virtual particles" come into being spontaneously & stochastically in empty space, meaning there is no external cause & it is impossible to predict when it will happen. Quantum fluctuations are the "temporary appearance of energetic particles out of nothing, as allowed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is synonymous with vacuum fluctuation." [3] Leading physicist Michio Kaku says that there is uncertainty in whatever we do because there's "uncertainty with regards to the position of the electron".[4] This dispels notions like that of the principle of sufficient reason. Things happen entirely different from what intuition would have us seem to be the case.

It also makes an uncaused beginning seem plausible. If things happen within our universe uncaused, there's no reason to find it plausible that the universe could have had no cause either. So how did it begin? Well, whatever way it did begin, if it had a beginning, is, no matter what, profound and there's no reason to say matter and energy could not have begun from nothing. Actually, it's contradictory to the very notion of "nothing" to say as such. The singularity is not necessarily the beginning of the universe. It could have all began a while before with whatever explanation. Stephen Hawking himself combines general relativity with quantum theory as an explanation and predicts that small fluctuations would develop into the structure of the universe [5].

The Cause
So far, pro has neglected from his most crucial task, to prove that God exists! All he's done is try to prove the universe began to exist and had a cause but the KCA is an argument for not just a cause, but God. Pro hasn't provided any reasoning as to why the universe must have been caused by God, if it indeed was caused at all.

[1] http://big-bang-theory.com...
[2] http://www.universetoday.com...
[3] http://universe-review.ca...
[4] video www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jint5kjoy6I Michio Kaku
[5] http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Pennington

Pro

Pennington forfeited this round.
phantom

Con

As by rule 1, pro forfeits the arguments and conduct points.
Debate Round No. 3
Pennington

Pro

Pennington forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Isn't it established scientifically that time and space are just one fabric (hence, time-space)? If so, then the beginning of time, indeed, entails the beginning of space, and so the universe at whole."

Ahh but if there is a space-time fabric, then the B-Theory of time is true. The Kalam depends on the A-Theory of time. So, either way....
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
If you want to win a debate, why would you use comic sans?
Posted by YouShallKnow 4 years ago
YouShallKnow
Good Day!^^,

First of all I want to thank phantom and Pennington for this (sadly, only) potentially good debate! The openings are fine and suggestive of interesting future points of contention.

What particularly interests me here is phantom's argument against the beginning of the universe even given finitude of time (and even given finitude entails beginning, I might add), namely, finitude of time does not imply finitude of the universe at whole, especially, space.

This, I also have long noticed, is one hidden assumption of the traditional arguments for the beginning of the universe, namely, beginning of time entails the beginning of universe as a whole. And so, it seems, is another vulnerable point of attack.

And this is my inquiry pertaining to it:

Isn't it established scientifically that time and space are just one fabric (hence, time-space)? If so, then the beginning of time, indeed, entails the beginning of space, and so the universe at whole.

Thanks for any response!^^,
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
He closes it off and on because his brother also uses the site apparently.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Pennington's profile is down, so likely he will not continue.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Apeiron, I was still correct. Hawking and Penrose's theory was not part of the big bang theory, I'm sure you would agree. The fact that something in my source contradicts my case only makes it unbiased. It did confirm the point I was making though. The big bang doesn't say anything about whether the universe began to exist. Any argument of that sort isn't part of the big bang theory. Pro could use that argument if he wanted, but Hawking has clearly changed his mind since then, seeing as he's an M Theorist and thus believes in a whole multiverse.

Also, I thought Einsteins equations broke down at the singularity? Just curious.
Posted by Pwner 4 years ago
Pwner
Phantom is right though, an initial state does not amount to beginning to exist. Coming into being involves more than just having a first time of existence. Dr. Craig realized this (especially because on his view God had an initial state yet didn't begin to exist) and responded by listing the conditions something must meet to come into being. Thus, pro hasn't justified 2.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
@Vulpes_Inculta
"Putting 'therefore' on your conclusion is superfluous."

What does that mean?
Posted by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
The link phantom used contradicts his own point that the big bang doesn't include content as to the beginning of the universe itself:

"Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."

http://big-bang-theory.com...
Posted by Vulpes_Inculta 4 years ago
Vulpes_Inculta
Putting 'therefore' on your conclusion is superfluous.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
PenningtonphantomTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments by rule #1.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
PenningtonphantomTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Hopefully Pennington won't be gone forever.... But yeah, missed rounds are bad conduct and they do not further the argument, plus the rule set on this debate.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
PenningtonphantomTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit to the doubley doo!