The Instigator
Fouiller
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Cody_Franklin
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The Cosmological Argument (CA) Increases the Possibility of a God or Gods

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,442 times Debate No: 11506
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (12)
Votes (8)

 

Fouiller

Pro

Whomever decides to accept this debate must show that the cosmological argument isn't something that significantly (if at all) increases the possibility of there being a god or gods. I would assume this would be accomplished by disproving the CA. Thanks!

The Cosmological Argument is as follows:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. The Law of Causality is a fundamental principle in science. See *1 for more info. Even David Hume admitted, "I never asserted to absurd a preposition as that something could arise without a cause." *2
2. The Universe had a beginning. Since the Universeis ever expanding, so it follows that it can be traced back to an originating point -- ie, the beginning. For more info, see *3.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

*1 http://en.wikipedia.org...(physics)
*2 David Hume, in the J.Y.T Greig edition of "The Letters of David Hume", volume 1 page 187.
*3 http://skyserver.sdss.org...
Cody_Franklin

Con

Skipping formalities, let's quickly cover the issue.

Pro assumes that, to disprove his thesis, I must disprove the cosmological argument; however, I don't intend to do that. Nice job trying to predict my thoughts, homeslice.The answer to this idea of probability is resolved thus:

By a logical dichotomy, either A or ~A; we cannot have both. That is to say, either God exists, or God does not exist. My opponent's argument is based upon the faulty presupposition that God's existence is based on the validity of any arguments which could be offered. Because God must either exist or not exist, no argument which we could hope to offer would change that reality; the validity of the argument may make it easier to stomach the idea of an omnipotent creator, but the facts of reality don't change based on arguments and wishful thinking; in fact, arguing is our way of conceptualizing, classifying, and understanding the facts of reality; incidentally, I think that my arguments have substantially increased the possibility of me winning this round (but that might just be wishful thinking, too). [http://en.wikipedia.org...][http://en.wikipedia.org...] So:

1. My opponent assumes that God's existence is a matter of probability; however, as I've noted, God either exists or does not exist. We're not looking at a 50/50 sort of thing here.

2. Even assuming that, by some twisted logic, the facts of reality were contingent upon uncertain possibility, offering up different arguments wouldn't change reality, nor does it in any way affect the existence of God (or the possibility thereof). Once again, argument and logic are the tools we have to understand reality - not to shape it.

Now then, here's your points breakdown:

Conduct: Con - A 1-round debate, Pro? Really?

S/G: Tied - I didn't really see any errors in particular.

Arguments: Con - Obviously.

Sources: Tied/Pro - I gave myself the benefit of the doubt, to be honest; but, I will admit that Pro had a couple of legitimate sources, though one of them was technically a quote. Your call.
Debate Round No. 1
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
geo your example is mangled.

your second premise would match up with the first:

"If the accelerator is pushed, the car moves"

to complete the analogy you would need a second premise something like this:

"Bob (or jasmin, or leon, or someone) pushed the accelerator"

therefore: "the car moves"

your example is more like a hypothetical syllogism. if i may rewrite it for clarity:

1. If a person is in a car, they push the accelerator
2. If the accelerator is pushed, the car moves
:. If a person is in a car, the car moves

note that the conclusion is an "if....then" statement. IOW: it doesn't say anything about what actually is, only what will be if the conditions in the first half of the sentence are met.

in neither case is there any question begging going on.

back to the KCA:

1. whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. the universe began to exist

you can challenge both of those premises. as far as i know 1 is generally countered with the invocation of virtual particles and 2 with the notion of an infinite universe. but if either one of those premises are false, the conclusion does not obtain.

begging the question would involve assuming "the universe has a cause" in a premise. what you are condemning right now is valid arguments. lol. it is the combination of the premises that lead to the conclusion, as it should be. if you want to challenge the argument, challenge the premises; don't resort to random fallacy accusations.
Posted by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
What if the accelerator pushed itself?
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
@Puck

Yeah, but the conclusion is a given, given the premises.

1. People who are in vehicles push the accelerator.
2. If the accelerator is pushed, the car moves.
:.The accelerator was pushed, therefore the car moved.

It's absurd, but that's what Kalam Cosmological says.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
"The phrase "increases the possibility of a god or gods" has been taken too literally. It was meant to convey the idea that this argument supports the idea of a god or gods. I cannot help but feel Cody_Franklin did this for an easy win. If that is the fault of my poor translation, then I apologize."

To be honest, Pro's intentions were not entirely clear. He repeatedly asserted that his argument increased the possibility of God's existence - not that it supported the idea of a God. Even if the latter had been his intention, saying "the universe must have a cause" doesn't support the existence of God, unless one presupposes his existence so that one might argue that he caused the universe; unfortunately, that would be begging the question of proving his existence. Plus, he only gave himself one round to debate. The fact that he gave himself no room to clarify his intentions or refute my arguments is no fault of mine.
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
@ Geo.

Not really. You'd condemn all valid syllogisms under that interpretation. Begging the question is where the conclusion is in the premise, not the premise in the conclusion - which is the whole point.

Premise 1 is a universal statement - the point of the syllogism is to assert that it then naturally applies universally.

"Assumed to be true" isn't begging the question either - it's called an unsupported premise (both are), and if false makes the syllogism unsound - which is the point of debating it, and noting the status of the premise as unsuspported.
Posted by Fouiller 6 years ago
Fouiller
The phrase "increases the possibility of a god or gods" has been taken too literally. It was meant to convey the idea that this argument supports the idea of a god or gods. I cannot help but feel Cody_Franklin did this for an easy win. If that is the fault of my poor translation, then I apologize.
Posted by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
I agree with Cons breakdown of points, exept for sources. not because of the source that was just a quote, but rather variety of the remaining sources. Con only used wikipiedia, witch is always being blasted on this site, and though Pro used wikipiedia too, he also used a source from somewhere else.
Posted by Bravo453 6 years ago
Bravo453
Here is a fundamental distinction between science and religion for you:

Science attempts to explain effects, NOT first causes, so causality can only be theorized through reasoning of mathematics. No definite first cause can be identified through the use of science because, by its very nature, it is based off the EFFECTS (reality) of a CAUSE (Big Bang, beginning of time, whatever suits you best).

Religion attempts to explain first causes, NOT effects, so God or gods cannot be proven to exist through the scientific observation.
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
FASCHIST!

Idk had to say that!
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago
GeoLaureate8
1. What ever begins to exist has a cause

(I would question the validity of this statement. There's a difference between matter and energy being transformed [in this case matter stretched and expanded] and actually beginning to exist. The Big Bang does not say the Universe began to exist. It says that the Universe came from an already existing singularity point.)

2. The Universe began to exist

(Uh, says who. We can't assume that the singularity point is the entire Universe, nor can we assert that the singularity point began to exist. It could have existed forever.

:. The Universe had a cause

(Question begging because Premise 2 is assumed to be true. You can't use Premise 2 to prove the conclusion.)
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job the two of you.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 6 years ago
popculturepooka
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sorrow 6 years ago
Sorrow
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 6 years ago
Teleroboxer
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:13 
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Bravo453 6 years ago
Bravo453
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
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:23 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
FouillerCody_FranklinTied
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