The Instigator
Sargon
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The KCA is False

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 6 votes the winner is...
Sargon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,669 times Debate No: 35006
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (47)
Votes (6)

 

Sargon

Pro

Ave.

Modern day theists use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to establish the existence of god, who is defined as the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, probably omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe. The argument has three premises.

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe had a cause.

By deductive reasoning, that cause is established to be god. I want a theist to accept this debate and demonstrate the truth of the premises and the logical validity of the argument. The burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that the KCA is false with a preponderance of the evidence.

The next round is for acceptance.

Vale.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept. Present your case against the KCA.
Debate Round No. 1
Sargon

Pro

Ave.

The argument I will be giving is loosely based on a paper by Quentin Smith that my opponent is aware of. [1] I want to point out that I am only basing my argument on Smith. I am only going to be using a single point he made in that paper, and I am not necessarily endorsing the rest of his cosmological viewpoint. RationalThinker is critical of Smith's argument for a self-caused universe because he disagrees with Smith's interpretation of relativity and quantum mechanics. I don't think that matters in the context of this debate, because if there is no absolute simultaneity, and there is no Bohmian interpretation, then there cannot be a cosmological argument for the existence of god. I'm also not going to argue that the universe was-self caused.

The KCA assumes that there is some state of time that is not preceded by any other state of time. We will call this the initial state of time, which is state of time that is not preceded by any other state of time. On a theistic view, all of matter, space, and energy came into existence in this initial state of time. The theist asserts that everything which begins to exist has a cause, so the beginning of all of these things requires a cause. For reasons that Pro will elucidate in the next round, this cause must be god.

My goal is not to show that the casual principle is wrong, or that the universe is eternal or oscillating. I agree with the first two premises of the argument. My only goal is to show that the initial state of time cannot exist, so god cannot have caused it. If god cannot have caused it, then he cannot exist, because god is defined by the KCA as the cause of the initial state of time.

Theists such as William Lane Craig appeal to the Big Bang in order to show that the universe had a beginning. [2] I don't disagree with this, and I too think that the universe had a beginning. It's significant because the theory of relativity proves that we don't live in a static universe, a discovery which helped the Big Bang theory get developed. One of the major proofs of the Big Bang is that the universe can't be static. If the theory of relativity is wrong, then the best proof of the Big Bang theory is also wrong. It would be very awkard for a theist to deny the theory of relativity, because it has implications on the Big Bang. If you invoke the Big Bang, you invoke relativity. If you deny relativity, you can't invoke the Big Bang. It's difficult, if not impossible, to prove premise two without the use of relativity. [3]

I shouldn't argue by implication only, however. There are many proofs of general relativity, some complex and some simple, so I will show that relativity is true using one of the simpler arguments. For many centuries, it was noted that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different from what Newton's equations would predict. Instead of orbiting in a perfect ellipse like other plants, the orbit of Mercury precesses (which means it does not return to the same point after one orbit, but shifts slightly). When Einstein calculated the orbit of Mercury using the equations of general relativity, it predicted the orbit of Mercury with perfect accuracy. This is a strong indication that the theory of relativity is true. [4]

This leads us to a problem with the KCA that has been ignored by theists in the mainstream literature. It's even ignored by atheist philosophers. If the theory of relativity is true, then there cannot be an initial state of time. The theory that the KCA assumes ends up being its demise. There are equations derived from the theory of relativity called the 'Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker' metric. This metric describes a universe that is homogeneous, isotropic, and expanding universe. [6]These metrics also state that every finite interval of time is half-open. This means that if you have a finite interval of time, such as an hour, you can divide that state into half an hour and another half an hour. An initial state of time is a finite interval, ergo, it is half-open. But if it is half-open, then it cannot be an initial state, because you can divide it in half.

The KCA assumes that there is an initial state of time. Premise two of the KCA assumes the theory of relativity. The theory of relativity contradicts the assumption that there is an initial state of time. Therefore, the KCA false, because its assumptions contradict one of the most proven theories in all of science.

References
1: http://www.infidels.org...
2: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
3: http://www.pbs.org...
4: http://en.wikipedia.org...
5: http://plato.stanford.edu...

Vale.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. In this debate, I am going to show why the Kalam Cosmological Argument establishes the existence of God, and why my opponent's argument fails.

Rebutting My Opponent

Pro only makes a few relevant statements here in his opening argument:

(i) "If the theory of relativity is true, then there cannot be an initial state of time."

(ii) "There are equations derived from the theory of relativity called the 'Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker' metric....These metrics also state that every finite interval of time is half-open. This means that if you have a finite interval of time, such as an hour, you can divide that state into half an hour and another half an hour. An initial state of time is a finite interval, ergo, it is half-open. But if it is half-open, then it cannot be an initial state, because you can divide it in half."

It is not at all clear how (i) is the case, so I am assuming that my opponent is using (ii) in support for (i). Therefore, my opponent's case rests upon (ii) being true.

Quentin Smith essentially sums up the position Pro is endorsing here:

"We can characterize the universe as a continuum of successive instantaneous states. This continuum of instantaneous states begins to exist in the sense that there is an earliest half-open interval of each length (a first hour, a first minute, a first second, etc.). The continuum's beginning to exist is caused in the sense that each instantaneous state that belongs to the continuum is caused by some earlier instantaneous states that also belong to the continuum." - Quentin Smith[1]

Even if I was to grant that the universe would be described as a continuum of instantaneous states in a successive manner, this also holds for a lot of other things as well, but it would be absurd to derive the same result. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the argument my opponent is putting forward. Lets take my opponent's life, it is a continuum of states that follow successively. If we are to stay consistent with Pro's logic, then his life is also half-open in the earlier direction. However, it is obvious that Pro came into being and that his existence had a first state. This means, that the universe could still come into being from non-being with a first state if this argument from Pro is all that is offered. It seems that Pro's argument is rendered absolute.

Robin Collins had a good example with regards to a cannonball in his rebuttal against my opponent's argument. If the gun powder goes off at a certain time, my opponent cannot say that the gun powder was the cause because according to his logic; we should never reach a first state for the gun powder to cause the cannonball's release. However, of course, the cannonball's release was caused by the gun powder.

"[T]he gunpowder explodes at 12:00pm and the cannonball hits the ground at 12:02pm. Further, consider theopen interval 12:01pm to 12:02pm. Any instantaneous cannonball state in the open interval (12:01pm-12:02pm) is causally explained by the infinite set of prior instantaneous cannonball states plus environmental states within the same open interval. Thus, by PCE the entire aggregate of cannonball states in the open interval (12:01pm-12:02pm) is logically explained without reference to the exploding of the gunpowder, or even the states at or before 12:01pm. Consequently, the exploding gunpowder is not needed to explain any of the cannonball states in the open interval (12:01pm to 12:02pm)...If such a continuum exists, then it logically follows by the rules of mathematics that the open interval with an infinite number of cannonball states exists." - Robin Collins[2]

Quentin Smith's argument leads to false results that we know are not true. Thus, it can be disregarded. The universe still had a first state. Robin Collins says:

"To illustrate one such paradox, consider the universe as consisting of a continuous sequence of instantaneous universe states (IUS), as Smith assumes in his argument. So conceived, between any instantaneous state U(0) and a later state U(1), there will be an intermediate state, U(½), that is halfway between them. In order for U(0) to cause U(1), it must first cause U(½). But, in order for U(0) to cause U(½), it must first cause U(¼), and in order for it to cause U(¼), it must first cause U(U39;), ad infinitum." - Robin Collins[2]

The sequence will never be completed, thus motion would be impossible. However, motion does indeed exist. A first state of the universe is still required.

Why The Cause Must Be God

Pro concedes the first two premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument:

"My goal is not to show that the casual principle is wrong, or that the universe is eternal or oscillating. I agree with the first two premises of the argument." - Pro

Since the conclusion of my opponent's argument is false (and is riddled with logical paradoxes), then there must be a first state by logical deduction.

As Pro states:

"Modern day theists use the Kalam Cosmological Argument to establish the existence of god, who is defined as the timeless, spaceless, beginningless, immaterial, probably omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe." - Pro

The external cause of time, must be timeless (time cannot cause the beginning of time itself). The external cause of space, must be spaceless (space cannot the cause the beginning of space itself). The cause has to be beginningless to avoid infinite regress, also only temporal entities come into being (something coming into being must be a tensed fact).

As William Lane Craig's states:

"e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, (iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at t is a tensed fact."[3]

The cause has to be immaterial (material cannot cause the beginning of material itself). The cause must be enormously powerful in order to create a universe. Also, the cause must be personal:

P1: The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.

P2:The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.

C: Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.[4]

You cannot have just a mechanically operating set of necessary conditions, because this would mean no universe would begin to exist; there would be nothing sufficient to bring it into existence. However, this is would be necessary due to the PSR (Principle Of Sufficient Reason[5]). If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary conditions and sufficient conditions, the universe would be eternal. This is because an effect is a direct result of its cause, so if the sufficient cause is eternal, then the universe would have to be eternal (William Lane Craig's "Origin of a Temporal Effect from a Timeless Cause" dilemma[6]). The universe is not eternal though. Therefore, the cause is personal. Only a person with free-will could account for a temporal beginning from a timeless cause. At least, this is the most plausible conclusion based on what we know about mechanical causation and person hood.

Conclusion

My opponent failed to meet his burden of proof. I showed why there has to be a first state, and why the cause of that first state must be God as defined by my opponent.

As it stands, the resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] Quentin Smith, "The Reason the Universe Exists is that it Caused itself to Exist," Philosophy 74 (1999), 583-584.
[2] http://www.infidels.org...
[3] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[4] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[5] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Sargon

Pro

Ave.

I have two contentions in regards to a personal cause of the universe. 1) The KCA demonstrates that there is no need for a personal cause of matter. 2) A personal cause of the universe is unnecessary given the evidence from physics.

1: The KCA depends on the idea of simultaneous causation [1]. Simultaneous causation is the idea that ‘’the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous.’’ [2]This is another instance of the KCA causing its own demise. The possibility of simultaneous causation allows us to explain the existence of matter without reference to a personal cause. Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time. Using the assumptions of the KCA, it can be demonstrated that there is no need to have a personal cause of matter.

2: Quentin Smith gave a talk that demolishes the idea of a personal cause.[3] He mentions the development of the Wave Function of the Universe by scientists such as Hawking and Vilenkin. It ‘’implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.’’ The Wave Function also has a large amount of evidence to support it: ‘’This theory predicts our universe has evenly-distributed matter on a large scale, which would be on scales of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe -- our universe has been expanding ever since -- would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called inflation. Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.’’ The universe came from ‘’a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe.’’ This demonstrates that a personal cause is not needed, but more importantly, it demonstrates that a personal cause is unlikely. As Smith says: ‘’For the wave function of the universe implies there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is all-powerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.’’

Let’s return to my argument from the theory of relativity. The KCA depends on there being a series of instantaneous states that eventually exhaust, requiring a first state of time that must be caused by something outside of time. Any attack on viewing the universe as a series of instantaneous states actually makes the KCA less plausible. So please, Pro, continue with these criticisms!

I think it's important to put Collins' paper into context. The cannonball analogy was an attack on Smith's Principle of Causal Explanation (PCE), which states that 'Once the existence of each of the parts is causally explained, the existence of the whole [or aggregate] is logically explained, since it is a logical consequence of the existence of the parts of the whole that the whole [or aggregate of parts] exists.' I'm not sure what part of my argument from relativity assumes the PCE, but in case I missed something, I'll quote from Smith. He argues that the PCE is better stated as 'Once the existence of each of the parts (states) of the universe has a historically complete explanation in terms of (earlier) parts of the universe, the existence of the universe is completely explained, since the existence of the universe is a logical consequence of the existence of its parts.' From this correction, Smith is able to say that 'Since the flight of the cannonball does not have a historically complete explanation in terms of earlier parts of that flight, no sound parallel argument can be constructed for the conclusion that the flight of the cannonball is completely explained by its parts and their causal relations.' The cannonball analogy is an argument against the PCE, which I never assumed, so it's irrelevant anyways. But if Pro would like an answer, that's it.

Collins also gives an argument that is a version of Zeno's paradox. I can't respond to it, because in order to read it, I had to read half of it. In order to read half of it, I had to read a quarter of it. In order to read a quarter of it, I had to read half a quarter of it. Eventually, I got tired and went to bed.

But seriously, paradoxes like this are solved by supertasks. Supertasks entail dividing finite intervals of time into smaller states of time. I will present the most common way of solving Zeno's paradox through the use of supertasks: The successive distances covered by Achilles as he progressively reaches the mid points of the spans he has left to go through form an infinite series 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + … whose sum is 1. Consequently, Achilles will indeed reach point B (x = 1) at t* = 1 P.M. (which is to be expected if he travels with velocity v = 1 km/h, as has been assumed). Then there is no problem whatsoever in splitting up his run into smaller sub-runs and, so, no inherent problem about the notion of supertask. I won't answer Pro's other argument about my life having a first state, because it's essentially the same argument as this one.

Let's summarize what the case against the Kalam is so far. The theory of relativity proves the Big Bang, and the theist uses the Big Bang to support the second premise of the KCA. Thefore, the KCA assumes that relativity is true. However, this causes the demise of the argument, because equations derived from relativity show that there cannot be a first state of time. Pro doesn't doubt the science of this, but only the implications of its truth.

The KCA also assumes that simultaneous causation is possible. As I demonstrated in the first part of my round, if simultaneous causation is possible, then atoms can come into existence without a personal cause. This means that matter can be explained without a personal being, but the theist asserts it can't be. Another case of the KCA's assumptions causing its own demise.

The Wave Function of the Universe demonstrates that a universe like ours is highly probable to occur through natural law. It also shows that an omnipotent being couldn't have caused the universe. It is confirmed by a large body of empirical evidence. Another reason to think there was no personal cause.

Pro objects to the PCE, but it's unclear as to how the PCE is part of my argument. Pro also tries to use problems with infinites to take down my argument. These problems are easily solved by supetasks. They're also wrong by consequence, because if infinites are impossible, then relativity and FLRK metrics have to be wrong. That's a tough bullet to bite.

For these reasons, the resolution is affirmed.

References

1: http://www.apologeticspress.org...

2: http://plato.stanford.edu...
3: http://www.infidels.org...

Vale.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

It seems as if this is going to be short and sweet, as Pro did not give me much valuable content to work with in the last round.

Why The Cause Must Be Personal

In order for there to be no need for a personal cause, my opponent has to refute my argument that a personal cause is the only plausible explanation. My opponent completely ignored my argument for a personal cause. My argument for a personal cause does show that a personal cause is needed, and it went completely unaddressed. The universal wave-function argument does not preclude a God, or my argument for a personal cause. Regardless, my opponent's argument actually backfires on him, because the wave-function of the universe necessitates a personal, sentient creator due to Orchestrated Objective Reduction!

Universal Orch-Or

Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff devised a theory that actually has made many predictions that have turned out to be true. This theory is called Orchestrated Objective Reduction[1]. This theory demonstrates that a self-collapsing wave-function is actually a conscious experience. There is scientific evidence to support this theory[2]. Now, what about the wave-function collapse of the universe? It had to have been self-collapsing, because there are no particles outside of physical reality which could collapse the wave-function. This means that Pro's argument for the universal wave-function of the universe actually proves God's existence, because only a conscious experience could account for the collapse of the wave-function of the universe.

Quentin Smith's Argument

My opponent misunderstands the cannonball analogy. It shows that that even if there was no a beginning state, that does not preclude God:

"Smith must: (i) Deny PCE; (ii) Deny that the explosion caused the sequence of cannonball states; or (iii) Retain PCE, but claim that the explosion provides an additional explanation of the sequence of cannonball states. Presumably, Smith does not want to take either options (i) or (ii). If he takes option (iii), however, then the theist can claim that this is the sort of additional explanation that God provides for the existence of the universe. Further, insofar as the explosion is essential to providing a complete explanation of the cannonball states in the open interval (12:01pm-12:02pm), the theist could argue that God is essential to providing a complete explanation of our universe, even though the universe contains no beginning point." - Robin Collins

My argument for a personal cause argues just that, and my opponent completely ignored it.

Also, I concede my opponent's argument with regards to an actual infinity. This was only marginal support for my argument, and it is not necessary for the rebuttal to Quentin Smith's argument to go through.

Conclusion

. I showed why a personal cause is necessary, and this argument went uncontested
. I showed why the wave-function of the universe actually demonstrates God's existence (Orch-Or)
. I showed why Quentin Smith's argument does not preclude God

A long winded response is not necessary. The resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://sbs.arizona.edu...
[3] http://www.infidels.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Sargon

Pro

Ave.


I’m going to give a general summary of the debate to show that a Pro vote is justified. I will respond to new arguments brought up by Con as well.


The first argument I gave against the KCA was from the theory of relativity. The KCA assumes that the theory of relativity is true, but it also assumes that there is a first state of time that god has to cause. I demonstrated, using FLRW metrics, that relativity shows there cannot be a first state of time. Con never tried to show that FLRW equations did not prove such a thing. Instead, he tried to argue against the implications of the idea. The first objection Con gave was that motion would be impossible if there was no first state. I used a philosophical concept called supertasks which showed that motion was possible even if there are an infinite number of sub-states in between two points. Con conceded this objection when he said ‘’Also, I concede my opponent's argument with regards to an actual infinity.’’ So, the first objection is a moot point now, because Con conceded it. This point goes to me.


The second objection was against Quentin Smith’s ‘’Principle of Causal Explanation’’. I made two responses to this point. The first response was that the PCE had nothing to do with the argument I gave. The second response was that, if you modify the PCE, you can solve the problem Robert Collins brought up. Neither of these two objections received a response in the last round. Instead, Con falsely accuses me of ignoring an argument he gave, which was that “[a] theist could argue that God is essential to providing a complete explanation of our universe, even though the universe contains no beginning point’’. I don’t understand how I ignored this argument. Con didn’t even bring this argument up in R2. How can I be blamed for ignoring an argument that wasn’t ever brought up? Besides, the argument is completely nonsensical for anyone defending the KCA to accept. A defender of the KCA cannot accept the idea that the universe has no beginning point, because that would contradict the idea of god as a first cause. Con conceded two criticisms of his objection, so this point should go in my favor as well.



Let’s talk about the need for a personal cause. Yes, I did ignore Con's argument about necessary conditions and free agents. This is because the two arguments I gave in my last round make his argument irrelevant, as they explain the universe without reference to a personal cause, but a naturalistic one.


My first objection to a personal cause was that matter could form without one. The KCA assumes that simultaneous causation is possible. I used the possibility of this to show that three atoms could come into existence without reference to a personal cause. I am not trying to say that three atoms could come into existence at the present moment without reference to a personal cause. I’m saying that, during a time in which there are no atoms, you can get atoms without a personal creator because of simultaneous causation. Con completely ignores this objection during his last round. There are no reasons to think that matter needed a personal cause. This point goes to me.


I showed that the Wave Function of the Universe completely demolishes the idea of a personal cause. For one, it states that the probability of a universe such as ours existing is 88%. If god caused the universe, then the probability would be 100%, because any logically possible thing that god wills has to happen. That is one reason to think that a personal cause did not create the universe. Secondly, it describes the universe as originating from a three-dimensional hydersphere that exists outside of time, so it doesn’t need any more of a cause than god does. This explains the origins of the universe without reference to god. Using the WVU, the universe can be explained naturalistically, and a personal cause is shown to be implausible. Con didn’t answer to any of these points. Instead, he tries to use physics to show that a conscious being causes the wave-function to collapse. Honestly, I feel like Con is getting into Deepak Chopra territory. I read his source and I don’t see anything that relates to what he said. I also read his first source, which states that ‘’there is no evidence for Penrose's objective reduction, but the theory is considered testable, and plans exist to carry out a relevant experiment.’’ Con concedes two points in regards to this, and the only thing he can muster up is something that his own sources indicate to lack evidence.

Ultimately, Con concedes too much. He concedes that an actual infinite can exist, which contradicts the assumption of the KCA that actual infinites cannot exist. He has failed to adequately respond to my argument from relativity. Con doesn't show that the PCE is relevant to my case, and he doesn't repsond to Smith's restatement of the PCE. Furthermore, Con suggests a way out of the problem that completely contradicts what the KCA says, which is that there was a beginning point for god to cause. I used another assumption of the KCA, simultaneous causation, to show that matter can form without reference to a personal cause. This was completely ignored by Con. I showed that the Wave Function of the Universe explains the universe without reference to a personal creator. I also showed that the WVU indicates god cannot have been the cause. Con drops these points and gambles on an idea that, according to his own source (one), has no evidence.

In my opinion, Con's arguments were frail and fell apart easily. Since my arguments stand at the end of the day, I have demonstrated that the KCA is false beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Vote Pro.

Vale.

References
http://www.infidels.org...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
http://www.apologeticspress.org...
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Damn it, I'll concede. The bulk of my losses are from playing devils advcate and conceding. When it comes to positions I agree with regarding God, I very seldom lose. I think I have to stop playing devil's advocate, as it is killing my record. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
Enjoyed reading this debate. Just a quick note, you should probably refrain from using the word "moot" in a debate (Sargon R4); depending on where you're from, it means terribly different things. I understand that Americans mostly use it to mean "case closed" or not up for discussion, however most of the rest of the world uses it to mean the opposite of this (i.e. something that's up for debate). Consequently, it just serves to add unnecessary ambiguity to what you write (it's not a big deal, just something which causes me to read a sentence a few times).

Also, you have Bell's theorem the wrong way around; Bell's inequalities show that local hidden variables cannot explain the predictions of quantum mechanics (which, in turn, has been verified by experiment). If you want to argue for local hidden variables, then you need to argue against the results of Bell test experiments (most usually through the fair sampling loophole). Bell's theorem, however, doesn't say anything about non-local hidden variables. Bohemian mechanics is non-local so it doesn't violate Bell's theorem, but that doesn't mean that Bell's theorem shows non-local hidden variables to be possible.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Why don't you accept my friend request already?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I just finished a debate on the Kalam:

http://www.debate.org...

It has no votes yet unfortunately. Anyway, I could not find anyone to accept that one either. What I did is I went to the "religion" forums and made a challenge. You will have a higher chance of getting someone to accept that way.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
@ RT

You know any theists who are always up for a debate on the Kalam?
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
@ Sargon, Thanks for your reply, I understand your point.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
@ Magic

I don't really care for sticking to one account. I like the feeling of having a new one.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
@ JohnLubba

This is a debate about the Kalam Cosmological argument, so I have to address a certain form of theism while I'm attacking it. The KCA isn't compatible with your conception of god, but the Christian or Islamic conception of him. I fully understand that this debate has no implications on god as you think of it.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Why do you keep opening new profiles Sargon?"

I do not know for sure, but my best guess is that he wants a perfect record. I did this debate with him not long ago:

http://www.debate.org...

He personally messaged me furious that I ruined his perfect record (he was beating philochristos at that time in one of their debates), then the voting tipped the scales and philochristos ended up winning their debate. Next thing I know; he closed his account.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Why do you keep opening new profiles Sargon?
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
I think the wave function could be cymatix, it is said in the Vedic litterauture that the universe is created using spiritual sound vibration, cymatix. And also actually there is very little matter as such, everything is almost empty space, atoms vibrating at such a frequency that we can perceive the universe as such, yeah no God or operator behind that just a 95% chance it would all happen anyway, if God did it it would be a hundred percent....

Lol
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
SargonRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. I think if you're going to play devil's advocate, you shouldn't concede. You already thought your arguments were fallacious when you entered the debate, so it doesn't make sense to concede if the whole point of entering the debate is to pretend and defend those arguments anyway.
Vote Placed by drafterman 3 years ago
drafterman
SargonRational_Thinker9119Tied
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: Concession
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
SargonRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Conceded
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
SargonRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with the second half of calculated R1sks RFD, And think both did a good job.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
SargonRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Pro argued exceedingly well, and I can't blame Con for surrendering. I think stretching one's self and growing by trying to defending opposing positions is more important than record. But I can't blame RT for wanting to take a break from it.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
SargonRational_Thinker9119Tied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Conceded. (What's with pro changing accounts every few weeks?)