The Instigator
Vulpes_Inculta
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Cauhtcoatl
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Cosmological Argument 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 4 votes the winner is...
Vulpes_Inculta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,691 times Debate No: 32737
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

I am challenging Cauhtcoatl, an atheist, to a debate about the soundness of the cosmological argument. Soundness means that the premises of the argument are true, and that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. God is defined as the timeless (therefore beginningless), immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing.

The cosmological argument for this debate will be the one that William Lane Craig Uses. Everything that begins exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had an uncaused cause.

The first round is for acceptance. In round two, I will present my argument and allow Con to give a rebuttal. After that, I will respond to Con's rebuttal in round three. In round three, Con will reinforce his rebuttal while asking me a few questions as part of a Q&A. In round four, I will answer his questions and give my own. The final round will be Con answering the questions I asked of him.

My burden of proof in this debate is to show that the cosmological argument is more plausible than the negation by inference to the best conclusion. Con's obligation is to negate my argument.

General rules of conduct should be followed.

Vale.
Cauhtcoatl

Con

I accept this debate. My stance is that the cosmological argument is not sound; that the argument for a first cause, or uncaused cause, is contradictory. As the burden of proof lies upon Vulpes Inculta, I shall merely attempt to refute his argument until the third round.
Debate Round No. 1
Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

The cosmological argument is a simple argument for the existence of god. The premises go like this:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe had an (uncaused) cause. [1]

The argument is in a logically valid Modus ponens. [2] If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, then it logically follows that the universe had a cause. The only issue with this argument is the truth of the premises. Therefore, I will attempt to demonstrate the premises to be true.

Premise one is based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason.[3] The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a philosophical principle postulating that everything must have a reason for its coming into being. I think that there are very good epistemological reasons to accept the PSR as true. How would we practice science if things came into being without any cause? Science is predicated on the idea that there are explanations for why things happen, and we should go out and discover the cause of why it happened. It’s deeply anti-scientific to suggest that things can begin to exist without reason. [4]

There are three major explanations for the origin of the universe. The universe came from nothing [5], the universe existed eternally [6], and the universe had an absolute beginning [7]. The hypothesis that the universe had an absolute beginning is the most convincing of these three, so premise two is upheld. Let’s investigate the three hypothesis and their plausibility.

The universe couldn’t have come from nothing. This is affirmed by the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit [8]. In English, this means ‘’Out of nothing, nothing comes’’. There is no way for something that exists to come from a state of absolute nothingness. I’ll give two arguments as to why this is true.

Firstly, the potentiality argument. If there is a state of absolute nothingness, then there is no potential for anything to happen. If there is no potential for anything to happen, then there is no potential for a universe to come out of nothing. Therefore, it is impossible for the universe to have come from state of absolute nothingness.

Secondly, the property argument. If you have absolute nothingness, then you have the universal negation of everything. Logically, you would then have the universal negation of all properties. But if something can come from nothing without cause, then that nothing does have a property. The property of something coming from it. By definition, something cannot come from an absolute nothingness, because then you never had an absolute nothing to begin with.

An eternal universe would require an absolute beginning. Cosmologists have explored the mathematics of an eternal universe and concluded that it had a beginning. Even if the universe existed forever, it still began to exist, so the eternal universe hypothesis does not refute premise two. [9]

All of the current astrophysical evidence demonstrates that the universe began to exist. On Steven Hawking’s seventieth birthday, cosmologists gathered to discuss the current state of cosmology. Physicist Alexander Vilenkin concluded his speech by saying , ‘’All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning’’. [10]

There are also philosophical reasons to believe that the universe had a beginning. If the past existed eternally, then there would be an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment. If there were an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment, we would never reach the present moment. However, we have reached the present moment. Therefore, the past could not have existed eternally. [11]

The cause of the universe beginning to exist is most plausibly god. The cause would exist before time, space, and matter, because it caused them to exist. The cause is, therefore, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

The cause is most plausibly personal as well. I quote Apeiron, DDO geophysicist and philosopher:


‘’If you walk into your kitchen as ask, "why is the kettle boiling?" two types of explanations can be given but only one is sufficient - the first type is a scientific explanation: that the water is heated to a point where atoms speed up their collisions, etc. But the second explanation is a personal one in terms of will or volition, "I wanted to make you tea."

In some contexts it would be inappropriate to give one explanation over the other. Now the universe can't be given a scientific explanation since it's the cause of space and time we're talking about here, there's no spatio-temporal thing before or beyond space and time so it couldn't be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of personal explanation in terms of volition, a personal explanation.’’ [12]

It’s also important to note that something which can cause the universe to exist must be extremely powerful, which suggests omnipotence.

In conclusion, the cosmological argument establishes a cause of the universe that is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, eternal, personal, and probably omnipotent. Using inference to the best conclusion, this cause is most likely god.

Vale.

References
[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[7] http://sententias.org...
[8] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[9] http://www.technologyreview.com...
[10] http://www.newgeology.us...
[11] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[12] http://www.debate.org...e/1/
Cauhtcoatl

Con

The first two premises of the cosmological argument I find no fault with, depending on the definition of the word 'cause'. I find fault with the third - that the universe had an uncaused cause. The first premise asserts that everything which begins to exist must have a cause. However, the uncaused cause of the universe is either something which began to exist or always existed - if the latter, then why is the second premise assumed to be true?

Premise one I find no fault in, but I do find fault in the reasoning of my opponent. Science is not predicated on the idea that there are explanations for why things happen, but is instead the study of reality.[1][2] As such, it follows that it is entirely scientific to suggest that things can begin to exist without reason, if the evidence points to such a conclusion.

The first idea, that the universe could have come from nothing, is not refuted by ex nihilo nihil fit, as it is a philosophical principle[3], and not a scientific one. Philosophy is not an authority on matters of science, as it is merely conjecture.

If there is a state of absolute nothingness, then there is nothing in existence. Some people believe that time did not exist prior to the big bang. I do not understand this. Time is an abstract concept. Even if there is nothing, there is time passing. It is not measurable, but it is passing, as it is merely a concept. Some people believe the same of the laws of physics - that, prior to things existing, there were no laws. I find this as false as the notion that time did not exist before the big bang. The laws of physics simply how things work. Gravity does not exist when there is nothing, but the fact that things with mass have gravitational forces does. As such, the laws of physics existed before 'things' did. Under those laws, we can observe that nothingness is inherently unstable.[4] Therefore, it is entirely possible for something to come from nothing, my opponent's argument against it is false.


Next, my opponent claims that an eternal universe would require an absolute beginning. This is not the case. Prior to 'stuff' existing, an infinite amount of time would have passed, as before this nothing, there was this identical nothing, and before this identical nothing, there was that nothing, and so forth, so it cannot be said to have begun to exist, as there is no difference between its existence and nonexistence.

However, if you take 'universe' to mean everything from the point at which things exist, then you can say that it had a beginning. Prior to which, there is no reason to think that the laws of physics would not have worked, as explained above.


Next, my opponent brings up Zeno's paradox. Diogenes the Critic is said to have refuted Zeno's argument by simply standing up and walking, demonstrating that it was indeed possible to reach a destination.[5] So, although Zeno's paradox is intriguing from both a mathematical and philosophical standpoint, we know that he was wrong. Therefore, we can indeed have an infinite number of events occuring before the present moment, just as we can move half of the way to a destination, then half of the remaining distance, and so forth, and still reach the destination.

Now, my opponent asserts that the cause of the universe is most plausibly god, with god defined as "the timeless (therefore beginningless), immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing." There are many problems with that mere definition of god.
The first is that it is not the definition used by nearly all of the world, and is therefore akin to defining communists as people who enjoy their toast without any butter or other things added to it. That is simply not the definition.
The second problem is the idea of god being without a beginning. The first premise of the argument is that everything which begins to exist has a cause, and the second is that the universe began to exist. This is acceptable, but when viewed in context of the definition of god, is not. There is no reason given for the universe to need to have begun to exist other than the first premise, however, it is clearly stated that god never began to exist. So, why could the universe not have always existed?
The third major problem is being omnipotent. Mainly that omnipotence is impossible. An omnipotent being would be able to create something it could not destroy. However, if it could not destroy something, then it could not be omnipotent. So if it could destroy that, then it would be unable to create something which it could not destroy.

Next, the quote from Apeiron. I simply fail to see how his assertion proves that the universe had a personal cause, or how a personal cause is different from a complete scientific explanation. A complete scientific explanation would include why the water was boiling and why it was in the situation in which it could boil. The explanation of the situation would include is 'personal cause.'

In conclusion, the cosmological argument has many, many flaws, as does my opponent's definition of god.

References

1: http://dictionary.reference.com...
2: http://en.wikipedia.org...
3: http://en.wikipedia.org...
4: A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss.
5: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradoxes#Proposed_solutions

Debate Round No. 2
Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

Let’s note some important words before I begin. If something exists necessarily, then it didn’t begin to exist. It exists inexplicably because of its own nature. If something began to exist, then it’s contingent, which means that its existence depended on some other event causing it to begin to exist. [1]


Con brings up an important objection to the cosmological argument. If everything that begins to exist has a cause, then how can an uncaused cause exist? Thankfully, Con doesn’t use the classical misunderstanding of the argument and ask ‘’Then what caused god?’’. Rather, he suggests that if there is a first cause that exists necessarily, there is no reason to think that the universe couldn’t also exist necessarily.


Premise two states that everything which begins to exist has a cause. In classical theism, god is considered to exist necessarily. Since god exists necessarily, god never began to exist, and there is no reason to think god had a cause of his existence. [2]


There are also good reasons to believe that the universe began to exist, and therefore had a cause. If the universe began to exist, then by definition, it couldn’t exist necessarily and without cause. I have already cited the overwhelming astrophysical evidence which proves that the universe had an absolute beginning. I quoted physicist Alexander Vilenkin to show that it’s very implausible for the universe not to have had an absolute beginning. Con doesn’t dispute any of this evidence in his rebuttal. So, as long as the evidence cited in favor of the universe’s absolute beginning stands, there is no reason to think that the universe exists necessarily.

Science is, indeed, the study of reality. If there is something in reality that leads to the conclusion that something can begin to exist without cause (reason), then it would be scientific to say so. However, there is no reason to think that there are things that begin to exist without cause. Why aren’t there widespread violations of the PSR all around us? For each way that things could go in accordance with the laws of nature, there is an uncountable infinity of ways that things could, for no reason at all, go contrary to the laws of nature. Our empirical observations suggest that the probability of such events is very low. If one rejects the PSR, then our knowledge of evolution may be undercut. For if one weren't confident of something very much like the PSR, it would be hard to be justifiably confident that no biological features of the human species arose for no reason at all. I think that inference to the best conclusion would lead us to accept that there is nothing that begins to exist without a reason for its existence.

I gave two arguments to support the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit. The first argument was the argument from potentiality, and the second argument was the argument from properties. Con doesn’t respond to any of these arguments in his rebuttal. Instead, he arbitrarily dismisses ex nihilo nihil fit as being nothing but a ‘’philosophical principle’’ that has nothing to do with reality. I find this dismissal of philosophy to be insulting. Firstly, ex nihilo nihil fit is best described as a metaphysical principle. Secondly, science has metaphysical claims built into it from the start. These are metaphysical claims like the existence of absolute truth and empiricism. There’s no way to have any foundation of science without metaphysical principles. So, it seems absurd to act like you can separate metaphysics and science without ruining what it means to do science.

A metaphysical principle is a statement about reality. If a metaphysical principle is true, then it’s true for all of reality. It’s not just true within philosophy. We both agree that science is a way of working out what reality really is. If ex nihilo nihil fit is a true metaphysical principle, then it’s true for reality, so it’s true for science as well. You can’t just act like a metaphysical principle is true for philosophy, but not for science. I’m disappointed that Con would argue against this metaphysical principle with an arrogant dismissal of philosophy, rather than actually engaging with the two arguments presented. [3]

Con tries to give reasons for why something can come from nothing. He makes an argument based off the idea that even if there’s nothing, the laws of physics would still exist, which can cause something to come form nothing. This argument makes the fallacy of equivocation. [4] He’s using nothing to mean something different from the metaphysical definition of nothing. We’re talking about nothing as in the universal negation of anything. That means there is nothing. There no laws of physics that describe how things act even if those things don’t exist yet. Con’s argument tries to refute ex nihilo nihil fit, but it’s predicated on a meaning of ‘’nothing’’ that’s not used for that principle.

Zeno’s paradox is an argument against an actual infinite, but it’s not relevant to anything I said in my opening argument. I gave entirely different reasons for why an eternal universe could not exist. Con says ‘’Just like Zeno’s paradox is wrong, so is the other paradox as well.’’ This doesn’t seem to make any sense. Why think that one argument against the infinite is wrong just because another one happens to be? In fact, Con is actually committing the fallacy of fallacy. [5] The fact that one argument is false does not mean it’s conclusion is false. For example, if I argued that everyone thinks other people exist, so therefore, solipsism isn’t true, then that would be a fallacious way of arguing. It doesn’t follow that the conclusion (solipsism isn’t true) must also be false, however. It just means the way that person came to that conclusion is false.

Con argues that my definition of god isn’t how god is typically defined. This isn’t a issue that Con can debate. In round one, I defined the definition of god for the purpose of this debate. When Con accepted the debate, he accepted my framework, which also means that he accepted all of the definitions. Con can’t accept the debate and then argue that the definitions I gave aren’t valid. If Con didn’t like the definitions, he shouldn’t have accepted my framework. That’s DDO conduct.

Con also cites the famous omnipotence paradox. It follows the logic of ‘’Can god create a rock that is so heavy, he can’t lift it?’’. This is supposed to show that omnipotence is logically impossible, so therefore, an omnipotent being is also impossible. This paradox isn’t a paradox at all, because it misunderstands what it means to be omnipotent. Omnipotence isn’t the ability to do anything. It’s the ability to do anything that’s logically possible. It’s logically impossible for god to create something that he can’t lift. Does this mean that god isn’t omnipotent? No, because omnipotence only requires him to do the logically possible, not the logically impossible. [6]

In my last round, I argued that the cause of the universe is most plausibly personal. Con’s objection to this point is weak. He simply refuses to accept that the argument shows a personal cause. That’s not a strong objection at all.

Con also seems to misunderstand what a personal cause is. A personal cause isn’t an explanation of why the water was boiling and why it was in the situation in which it could boil. A personal cause is “in terms of the intentional action of a rational agent” (Swinburne, 1979, 20). None of those have anything to do with rational agency. [7]

Vale.

References
[1] http://www.unc.edu...
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://ubphi212.wordpress.com...
[7] 1979, The Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cauhtcoatl

Con

Pro claims that the universe must have a cause, because it began to exist. However, the uncaused cause of the universe never began to exist, but instead simply existed.
If the uncaused cause never began to exist, then it cannot be said to not have always existed - that is, it must have always existed.
I quote Pro:
"If the past existed eternally, then there would be an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment. If there were an infinite number of events occurring before the present moment, we would never reach the present moment. However, we have reached the present moment. Therefore, the past could not have existed eternally."
So Pro contradicts himself.

Why is there no reason to think that things exist without cause? Because things don't happen constantly without cause all of the time? They do.[1] Quantum fluctuations are short changes in the energy in a point in space, for no reason and violating the law of conservation of energy, as it is the addition of energy to the system, albeit temporarily.
Pro does not distinguish between something beginning to exist without cause and a violation of the laws of physics. He thinks that, if things can happen without reason, then they must violate physics. However, as I explained in the previous round, the laws of physics existed before 'things' did. As such, things can happen without reason so long as they abide by the laws of physics.
Pro claims that if we accept that things can happen without reason, then we cannot be confident in our knowledge of our evolutionary history, because there would be a tiny bit of doubt. But there already is doubt. It is possible that we just spontaneously appeared a few minutes ago, and it simply happens to be that everything appears much older. It is not because of absolute confidence that we accept what we accept, but because of parsimony.

It does not matter if that dismissal of philosophy is insulting. Philosophy is not science. Science is science. Metaphysics explains, but it does not justify with empirical evidence. Science does not have metaphysical claims build into it, because it is, as already stated, study. Science does not assume the existence of absolute truth for little reason, but because that is what is most logical. Experiments demonstrate that things follow certain rules, and there are few outliers. Therefore, it is parsimonious to assume that there is absolute truth rather than relative truth. And empiricism is not metaphysical. Empiricism is simply the use of evidence over non-evidence.

Pro claims that I am using the fallacy of equivocation in my definition of nothing, because I explained that the laws of physics would exist with the negation of everything. Pro believes this because he is simply refusing to address my explanation that the laws of physics are not 'things' but instead simply the way in which things work. When everything is negated, time is not - it matters not, but as it is a concept it still exists.

Pro perceives a difference between the idea that if a certain point must be reached halfway before it can be reached, and then halfway again ad infinitum, and what he said, about an infinite number of steps.
They are exactly the same. What he said was that if there was an infinite number of steps which must occur, then we can never reach the present moment. That is zeno's paradox.
I am not committing the fallacy of a fallacy, because I am not saying that his argument contains a fallacy. I am saying that his argument is zeno's paradox, which is demonstrably false, regardless of however enticing it is.

Pro becomes agitated that I attacked his definition of god. If he does not wish to address it, he need not. However, I felt that, since I could, I might as well show the flaws in his definition.

Pro then debates this issue which cannot be debated, and claims that omnipotence is the ability to do anything which is logically possible.


Now, I ask questions.
Question 1: Why do you believe that the negation of everything includes the negation of concepts such as time?
Question 2: How much, then, can god lift? Can he lift infinitely much weight, or can he create more than he can lift? Or can he only create as much as he can lift?


1: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Vulpes_Inculta

Pro

Ave.

Q1 Answer: The nothing that ex nihilo nihil fit talks about is an absolute nothing. It contains no metaphysical principles. It contains no concepts. Thus, time doesn't even exist when nothing doesn't exist. How does it make sense to talk about 'before' and 'after' when nothing exists? (That's not a question.)

Q2 Answer: God can lift however much it is logically possible for him to lift.

Q1: You argued that I contradicted myself by saying that an actual infinite cannot exist, but also saying that god exists eternally. However, I also said that god is timeless. The existence of god doesn't require time to exist forever as well. God would exist sans time. What do you make of this?

Q2: As long as metaphysical principles are established using logic and reason, why not accept them to be true? Logic is objective, so any true metaphysical principle derived using logic would have to represent reality.

Q3: What do you think about probabalistic casuality and quantum fluctuations?

Q4: Empiricism isn't metaphysical, but it's a philosophical claim. You seem interested in getting rid of philosophy, yet you think that science is better than philosphy because it's empirical. You can never demonstrate that empiricism is true using science, so you have to resort to philosophy. Thoughts?

Vale.
Cauhtcoatl

Con

1: If god is timeless, then god is outside of the realm of reality, as time, although losing all meaning with nothing to be compared to, still exists. Therefore, god is either infinitely old or began at some point.

2: I'd rather have logic, reason and evidence.

3: If there's a probability that's not certain, it's random.


4: Empiricism is the way science works, by definition. Science is defined as using experimentation, evidence, et cetera.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
woops ignore last post was supposed to be
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe had an (uncaused) cause. [1]
Both of these are the assumed points.
Posted by narmak 4 years ago
narmak
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
Both are assumed points
Posted by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
@ Pennington,

We exist in the physical realm, meaning any belief that goes beyond just a mere whim will need evidence that can be analyzed within the physical realm. You're free to hold whims, but don't pretend like they're justified beliefs.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
So you maintain that merely physical means are all that need be taken in to account? You are denying any means outside our visual knowledge. You ignore any chance of knowing outside a mental framework of material measurement. More scientific theories have been discarded then accepted and some take longer then others.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
The difference between physics and your random incredible belief is that physics writes verifiable equations that can be proved or disproved by observation and measurement. That's quite different from random beliefs not subject to verification. Many scientific theories have been discarded once proved to conflict with verifiable data. The Steady State theory of the universe was favored until evidence for the Big Bang made it undeniable. The cosmological argument depends entirely on an unfounded belief that it couldn't be otherwise.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
"All of this completely denies common sense and everyday experience."

Lets just sit back and think of all the other beliefs and thoughts out there that get labeled the same way and are considered not creditable.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Everyone debating the cosmological argument should read at least one book on modern cosmology, like Hawking's "The Grand Design." Arguments about "infinite time" assume that time always exists; modern cosmology denies that. Quantum physics requires that objects only exist as probabilities. There is strong evidence that vacuum energy is created from "true nothing." All of this completely denies common sense and everyday experience. All we can say is that the equations work, it agrees with all we observe, and there are no better explanations.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by medv4380 4 years ago
medv4380
Vulpes_IncultaCauhtcoatlTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con tossed away an important argument due to miss-understanding the scientific understanding of time. The Cosmological Argument hinges on A Time Theory. However Space-Time is considered closer to B Time Theory. By making the claim that Science is wrong about Space-Time and insisting that Time "Just Is" played into A Time Theory. Pro was able to counter the argument of infinite time since A Theory cannot logically have infinite time. B Theory would support infinite time via a simple loop.
Vote Placed by Apeiron 4 years ago
Apeiron
Vulpes_IncultaCauhtcoatlTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Pro for quality and the quantity of citations, I checked out most of his sites and learned some new things. Convincing arguments also go to Pro since he dealt nicely with what I considered to be Con's most forceful objection, quantum mechanics. Pro showed that this is based on a common misunderstanding of QM. Second, Con's other objection was based on another misunderstanding, "ncaused cause of the universe is either something which began to exist or always existed." This is a false dichotomy, he ought to know that theists have always considered God to exist necessarily and therefore eternally in the sense of never having a beginning. Con mistakes "never having a beginning" with [never existing]. Con then concludes with advocating science. Cool, but this was a higher order philosophical arguments which can (if you want) have scientific confirmation supporting one of the premises in the philosophical argument that lead to a theistic conclusion. Good job both, but Pro easily
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
Vulpes_IncultaCauhtcoatlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a good debate. I think both debaters did well. I did not like the answer from something coming from nothing by Con with, "Quantum fluctuations." There are things happening to make them flucutuate to begin with. This answer was not satisfactory as was the answer to philosophical science. Con did bring up some interesting points against Pros case but I felt Pro gave adequate answers. Pro fulfilled the BOP by showing that things do not exist from nothing, That the universe has a beginning, and that the best answer for that cause is God by description. I did not think Pro gave a through answer for why God has to exist but it was adequate enough to prove the argument.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Vulpes_IncultaCauhtcoatlTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The cosmological argument depends upon models of the universe derived from our ordinary existence: things occur only with cause, time always exists, and it's not possible that something appear from nothing. Quantum physics requires that some things occur only as probabilities. Cosmology models vacuum energy as being created from nothing. M-theory requires that time can start and stop. Con doesn't go far enough to reflect all of modern cosmology, but he goes far enough to show the cosmological argument to be unsound. The assumptions of the cosmological argument are disproved.