The Instigator
TheMolestacher
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Clash
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

The KCA is ridiculous.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
Clash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,736 times Debate No: 29520
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

TheMolestacher

Pro

It is, frankly it seems like a cheap way out of cosmology to me. The Logic in the argument can be used against God and makes no sense. Not trying to be offensive here but I hate this argument with a passion. (Much like the fine tuning argument)1st round is acceptance.
Clash

Con

I accept. As Con, I will argue that the KCA is not ridiculous. There are probably some people who don't know what the KCA is, so I would like to explain what it is very fast. The KCA (the kalam cosmological argument) is an argument for the existence of God, and it goes like this:

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.

C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

With that said, I'm looking forward to a fruitful debate. I now turn it over to Pro for his arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMolestacher

Pro

It is, frankly it seems like a cheap way out of cosmology to me. The Logic in the argument can be used against God and makes no sense. Not trying to be offensive here but I hate this argument with a passion. (Much like the fine tuning argument)1st round is acceptance.


As I understand it the KCA is exactly as described by the lovely clash. But for some reason this argument is used by Pro God debaters (Godders!). I don't understand this. Here is why:

Hypocrisy

I personally think this argument should be used against God. It states that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. So we can say that the universe has a cause. Now if you have an understanding of Quantum physics and Relativity (Which I kind of do) you will know that the universe does have a cause, however, unlike the Religious would have us believe, that cause does not have to be a God. Now I hold that there is a possibility for a God. But I believe there is not and this argument is not an argument in my books. We know that the universe "Blew up" if you will, however that's just a term to show how fast it expanded. But it didn't expand out of nothing. Before the big bang, there was energy. This is still a developing theory but is supported by a large percentage of the scientific community. Everything that is now, is made of that same energy. Energy makes quarks, quarks make hadrons, hadrons make atoms, atoms make other stuff!

So that is why we believe that god is not the only option. However, I am here to explain how it can be used against god.

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" Something which can have physical impact on anything else, exists in the physical world. And so this applies to said thing. That thing is God. God must too have had a cause or he cannot exist in the physical world and did not create the Universe. So what caused a God? Well we have two options here. Either God is eternal and exists in a non physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful, or God does not exist. Either could be the reality if the KCA holds.
Thus this argument is totally hypocritical because it states something and then refuses to acknowledge that that same law should apply to the main subject of the argument!

Physical exemption!?
Now whenever I use this argument, I get a response something like this.
"Yeah but God has always existed." First of all that contradicts exactly what you have just said , and secondly, I have already explained that if he exists he cannot be all powerful, and so you can't use the argument that he is exempt from the laws of physics. The history of religion is dotted with changes to beliefs that contradict one another. For example, many believe that God created us in his image. But as soon as we sent a man to the moon: "God is invisible." (So why aren't humans?) It is ridiculous to simply say that the laws of Physics do not apply to God. I find it to be a cheap way out of cosmology. You can't just, as soon as we come up with something that could make God unlikely or even impossible, say that that doesn't work with God though because he's all powerful. (So why do we have murder and rape?) If we simply accepted that God is immune to everything we know to govern our universe and EVERYTHING in it, we probably never would have had research done into the big bang, or inflation, or any other cosmological pursuit. Because we would have an answer.
It seems like a desperate attempt to preserve beliefs, saying that nothing applies to God because he is all powerful, it's just a way of getting out of research and further pursuit of knowledge, and it is very dismissive.


So what have I told you today? That the KCA makes God unlikely if it is to be taken as a serious argument, and that the defence of this argument "But god is all powerful" is invalid.

I thank the clash for accepting this debate and look forward to his arguments!

VOTE PROP!


Clash

Con

Thank you for your arguments.


1. Pro agrees that the universe does have a cause because of his understanding of Quantum physics and Relativity, but he also says that God doesn't have to be the cause of the universe and that there are other options. I do agree that God doesn't have to be the cause. However, it is more likely that God caused the universe. Why? Because when we look at the properties of the cause of the universe, it perfectly resembles what we call "God".

For example, the cause of the universe must be unimaginable powerful as it bought the whole universe into existence. The cause of the universe must also be personal; for how else could a impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? As William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." [1] Lastly, this cause must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, because time, space and matter began at the "Big Bang" (or at the moment the universe came into being). In summary, this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, and unimaginable powerful. Indeed, this cause is a being which basically everyone takes to be God. It is therefore more reasonable to believe that the cause of the universe was God, rather than believing that another universe or something caused it.

2. Pro said that there was energy before the big bang. However, talking about what happened or existed before the big bang, as Einstein himself rightly said, is just completely nonsensical. It's like asking what happens if you travel north of the North Pole. The fact of the matter is that we don't know what existed before the big bang. There are of course many different theories on what might have existed before the big bang, but these are just theories and without any valid evidences.

Moreover, even if we grant that it is true that there was some kind of energy before the big bang, what exactly would this prove? That the cause of the universe cannot therefore be God? Or that that this energy itself created the universe? There is just no reasonably way that a kind of energy existing before the big bang could create something, let alone our universe. So all this energy nonsense doesn't really prove anything, nor is there any evidences which proves that some kind of energy existed before the big bang.

3. Pro said: "God must too have had a cause or he cannot exist in the physical world and did not create the Universe." This just doesn't make sense. How does it follow that God cannot exist in the physical world and create the universe if he doesn't have a cause? Pro doesn't answer and explain this - rather, he simply just asserts things without supporting them with any evidences whatsoever.

4. Pro said: "Either God is eternal and exists in a non physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful, or God does not exist." What Pro is doing here is assuming that God, if he is eternal and exists in a non-physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful. However, no evidences whatsoever to support this absurd claim is given. Accordingly, this claim must for now be dismissed.

5. Pro said: "Yeah but God has always existed. First of all that contradicts exactly what you have just said , and secondly, I have already explained that if he exists he cannot be all powerful, and so you can't use the argument that he is exempt from the laws of physics." I can't see how God being eternal contradicts anything which I have said. Concerning God not being all powerful, you have not actually given any evidences to prove this.

6. Pro said: "It is ridiculous to simply say that the laws of Physics do not apply to God. I find it to be a cheap way out of cosmology. You can't just, as soon as we come up with something that could make God unlikely or even impossible, say that that doesn't work with God though because he's all powerful."

I agree that we cannot say that something doesn't work with God as soon as we come up with something that could make God unlikely or even impossible. As for the laws of physics not applying to God, I have 3 things to say on this. First and foremost, no reasons are given to support Pro's statement that it is ridiculous to say that the laws of physics doesn't apply to God. Secondly, even if we grant that it's true that it is ridiculous to say that the laws of physics doesn't apply to God, what exactly would this prove? That God cannot therefore be the cause of the universe, or that he cannot even exist? Please, elaborate. Thirdly, it must be noted that God created the physical world (the universe). God himself remains outside of the physical world and thus, the laws of physics doesn't apply to God. The laws of physics only apply to things in the physical and natural world, not anything beyond that.

Pro has not successfully defended his claim that the KCA is ridiculous. All of Pro's arguments have been refuted, and many of them are not supported with any evidences whatsoever; they are rather simply just baseless claims. I turn it over to Pro.

_______

Sources

[1] William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, page 145.
Debate Round No. 2
TheMolestacher

Pro

Sorry I took a while. And I thank my opponent for his arguments and I will now attempt to rebut them.

1: First of all I would like to quote my opponent."The cause of the universe must also be personal; for how else could a(n) impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? As William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." I argue that this is an assertion that first of all is very poorly explained, there are no definitions of "personal" or what temporal effect he meant, and second of all is very poorly supported. To quote a man who is possibly one of the most debunked physicists in history is not enough to prove an assertion. Thirdly, of course something non personal can give rise to something temporal! Would you argue that when an apple falls and give temporary motion to the ground it hits (in the form of a vibration) that that drop was personal?I.E it was caused by a direct intervention of a being? "Lastly, this cause must be timeless, spaceless and immaterial, because time, space and matter began at the "Big Bang" (or at the moment the universe came into being).In summary, this cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, and unimaginable powerful." Firstly, not true. Secondly, this in no way proves your point, energy for example is all of the above. You stated above that whatever caused the universe must be "unimaginable powerful" an this assertion is both untrue and unsupported. Alexander Fleming first brought penicillin into the universe. Is he "unimaginable powerful"? To quote Lawrence M. Krauss " The staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that suggest that not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing."[1]

2: I agree that it is nonsensical, but only in this debate. Of course we can find out what was before the big bang. Energy can never be created or destroyed. Which further links in with my point that God cannot simply be exempt from the laws of physics because you want him to be. NOTHING can create energy. So if the KCA would hold, then there cannot be a physical God. I will go into more depth with this later.

3: I'll make a point out of this one.

Like I have explained before,you simply cannot create a law (the KCA) and then claim that it does not apply to the main subject of that law. It's absurd. If you're rule doesn't work on certain things, it is not a rule. It's a bit like saying that all apples are red. But then claiming that this only applies to red apples. What you are doing is picking and choosing what you want from your argument and thus making it redundant. If it does not apply to everything, than the claim cannot be made that it applies to anything. Now I can see that my opponent will find a rule that does not apply to everything but applies to some things. Like the fact that we know antibiotics work on certain bacteria, not all of them though. However we have observed and tested antibiotics working. I am talking about though is theories and laws that are supposed to apply to everything, like thermodynamics and the KCA. Because we cannot directly observe the results of the KCA, unless you can claim that it applies to EVERYTHING, you cannot claim that it is a law that works for everything. This is pretty much common sense. Therefore if you claim that the KCA does not apply to God, you are stating that we cannot possibly know it to apply to the universe, as it is supposed the apply to everything.
"1.Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2.The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore:
3.The universe has a cause of its existence." [2]
Unless it applies to God, it is not valid, and if it does not, God is not something (that is if this argument is a valid one).
I don't believe I need provide any further points for this area.

4: "Pro said: "Either God is eternal and exists in a non physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful, or God does not exist." What Pro is doing here is assuming that God, if he is eternal and exists in a non-physical universe, cannot interact with our universe and therefore is not all powerful. However, no evidences(?) whatsoever to support this absurd claim is given. Accordingly, this claim must for now be dismissed."
Not it must not. My previous argument may be rebutted in the following way: "God does not exist in a physical universe and therefore our physical laws cannot be applied to him." Ok, fair enough, you can argue that God does not exist in our universe, but then, how could he have cause it? If God is not physical, he can't interact with anything physical. This is because anything physical has substance. Everything in our universe does, even energy. So everything in our universe can react with one another. But it's presume there is something non physical. It does not have any substance. It is not able to interact with anything physical because it is not. It's harder to explain it any further than that, and I think my opponent can see my point. If it is not physical it does not exist in the conventional sense, and so it isn't governed by the laws of physics. Dreams exist but are not physical. They are more of an idea. Or so to speak. They cannot have any interaction with the universe (so far as we know).
So in conclusion, you have two options if the KCA is correct. God exists but did not create the universe, or God does not exist. And of course the option that the KCA is not correct.

5: It contradicts what you have just said in the following way.
"Everything has a beginning and thus a cause. But God has always existed."
See? Hypocrisy!

6: I have already explained everything in this subject.

I put it to you that the KCA proves a non physical or non existing God, neither of which can create a universe, not and does not prove an existing one. Either that or it is not valid.
I turn it over to CON, and don't y'all forget to vote now!

SOURCES
[1]: The book "A universe from nothing: why is there something rather than nothing?" Sorry couldn't find that quote online!
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Clash

Con

Thank you for your response.

1. In my previous round, I said that the cause of the universe must be unimaginable powerful, personal, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. As we will clearly see now, my opponent has not successfully refuted this point.

Personal

In answering the proposition that the cause of the universe must be personal, Pro said that this is an assertion that is very poorly explained, and that there are no definitions of "personal" or what temporal effect means. I will explain what this means, since Pro apparently doesn't understand it. What is meant by "personal" is basically a being or agent with a mind, a being that can freely choose what to do. What is meant by "temporal effect" is something that is produced by an cause pertaining to time.

Pro moved on to say: "something non personal can give rise to something temporal! Would you argue that when an apple falls and give temporary motion to the ground it hits (in the form of a vibration) that that drop was personal?"

But the apple didn't itself choose to do this. Again, as William Lane Craig rightly states, "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." It must be noted that there are two types of causes. The first is event causation, which is a spontaneous result of previous impersonal factors. The second is agent causation, which is an agent who simply decides. An event cause (i.e. a non-personal entity) cannot account for the beginning of the universe because with any event we must ask: What prior event caused that current event, and what event caused that prior event (ad infinitum)? Seeing that an infinite regress of causation is not possible because there cannot be an infinite amount of time in which an infinite amount of events could take place, the ultimate cause of the universe cannot be an impersonal event.

Timeless, spaceless, and immaterial

In answering to the proposition that the cause of the universe must be timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, Pro surprisingly said that energy is all of this. But indeed, to say that energy is all of this is a claim which must be supported by actual evidences. Pro has not given any evidences and thus, this claim must for now be dismissed.

Unimaginable powerful

In answering to the proposition that the cause of the universe must be unimaginable powerful, Pro said: "You stated above that whatever caused the universe must be "unimaginable powerful" an this assertion is both untrue and unsupported. Alexander Fleming first brought penicillin into the universe. Is he "unimaginable powerful"?

What Alexander Fleming did doesn't really require much power. But it is true that some things does require power, and sometimes a lot of power. For example, it does require a lot of power to create a house just by yourself. We can say that the one who created this house was a powerful person. However, how powerful someone is depends on the thing which this someone has made or created. The person who build a real house is surely more powerful than the person who just build a sand house on the beach, for example. And there is little doubt that the one who caused the universe was more powerful than anything we humans can think of. Remember, we are now talking about the whole universe.

So although we can say that someone who for example build a house is powerful, the one who caused the universe must have been extremely more powerful. Indeed, I think we can rightly say that God was this powerful being, a being which is even thought of as omnipotent. It must also be noted that just being powerful doesn't at all qualify you as the cause of the universe. You must also be personal, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. God, in contrast to Alexander Fleming for example, have all these properties. A reasonable person would therefore agree that it is more probable that this being which we call God caused the universe.

2. Pro said that we can find out what was before the big bang. But how can we find out what was before the big bang, and what evidences have been given to support this claim? Nothing. You can't just claim something and move on without supporting it. As for God being exempt from the laws of physics because you want him to be, I do agree with this. I never, however, said that God is exempt from the laws of physics simply just because I want him to be, so I really don't know why Pro keeps bringing this up.

Pro also said that energy can never be created or destroyed, and that nothing can create energy. But even if we grant that this is true, how would it damage the KCA or show that it is ridiculous? This is a crucial question which Pro needs to answer, or his whole energy stuff would be meaningless.

Lastly, Pro said that if the KCA would hold, then there cannot be a physical God. How would this, however, damage the KCA in the slightest or show that it is ridiculous? I will leave this question for Pro to answer.

3. In this section, Pro basically talked about how we can't say that the KCA doesn't apply to the main subject of one or another kind of law, and that the KCA doesn't apply to everything. What Pro said in this section is a little bit confusing, at least for me. I can't quite understand what Pro is trying to say here, so it would be nice if Pro could elaborate and explain in his next round what he is trying to say. However, I think I maybe know what Pro is trying to say here. Pro is saying (and please do correct me if I am wrong) that we cannot claim that premise 2 of the KCA (whatever begins to exist has a cause) doesn't apply to God. But note that this premise is only saying that whatever begins to exist has a cause. God, however, never began to exist and thus, it is completely right to say that this premise doesn't apply to God.

Pro also said that if we claim that the KCA doesn't apply to God, we are saying that we cannot possibly know it to apply to the universe, as it is supposed to apply to everything. First of all, it is very mistaken to say that the KCA is supposed to apply to everything. The KCA is only supposed to apply to things which begins to exist, as I previously made clear. As for Pro's claim that if we say that the KCA doesn't apply to God, we are saying that we cannot possibly know it to apply to the universe, this just doesn't make sense. To be honest, I don't even know what Pro is talking about here. I would like to again ask Pro if he could elaborate on this. For example, how does it follow that we cannot possibly know that the KCA applies to the universe if we claim that the KCA doesn't apply to God?

4. Pro said that if God is not physical, he can't interact with anything physical. No reasons or evidences are given to support this claim. But even if we grant that this is true, would this therefore mean that God couldn't cause the universe? I don't see how that would follow. Now, Pro asked that if God does not exist in our universe then how could he have caused it? Well, by simply just choosing to do so. And it's worth noting that in order to cause the universe, God himself cannot exist in it. You have to first be outside of the natural universe in order to cause it. To be in the universe before you even cause it, or to be in the universe at the same time as you cause it, is incoherent and impossible.

5. Pro said: "It contradicts what you have just said in the following way." Everything has a beginning and thus a cause. But God has always existed." See? Hypocrisy!" The KCA doesn't say that God has always existed. The KCA only argues that the universe must have cause because it began to exist, and giving some properties to this cause, we can come to see that this cause is God. So there is no hypocrisy in the KCA. I do myself, however, agree that God has always existed. Indeed, everything which begins to exist have a cause, but there must also exist an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes.



Debate Round No. 3
TheMolestacher

Pro

I thank the opponent for his arguments and will now post my summary and clarify my arguments.

First of all, the grammar in my opponents last two posts has been painful to read. I quoted "unimaginable powerful" because it doesn't make any sense and because it was said more than once. This was re-quoted by the opposition and used as an argument! As if they did not realise it makes no sense!

Secondly I am getting annoyed with the claim that there is an apparent lack of evidence for my arguments. First of all, I am not a doctor of physics. How do you expect me to explain the substance of energy in great detail!? (this isn't an excuse, I did provide sufficient evidence for my points). Secondly, I have explained in great detail all of my points. I have provided sufficient evidence for all of them. And thirdly... I am getting really sick of the WLC quotes. The man has a website dedicated to debunking him.[1] Quoting a massively disputed physicist and providing a very vague quote is not evidence for a point! This point of yours (which seems to be your entire argument) has absolutely zero evidence provided for it and actually makes no sense. The whole quote is a massive assertion. I can't even begin to describe how invalid this point is because you have never once explained any of the quote! You have simply taken it to be fact without justified reasons. But I'll try and debunk it.

My apple analogy was used because of how poorly explained this point was. But more to the point, this entire proposition is based on an assertion, that something that can create the universe must be all powerful. Simply not true. It is even possible that humans can create a universe, sometime in the future. Don't ask me to explain it, the evidence here is that it is possible. We know that energy existed before the big bang. Energy can NEVER be created. EVER. By any means whatsoever. Or destroyed. If we can synthesize pure form energy from elementary particles, which I can't exactly explain, but is perfectly possible, it is possible that that energy would create a universe. Don't take this one too seriously. My point is that you have given no evidence for your claim that too create the universe you have to be all powerful, and that it is "possible" that a universe could be artificially. Granted unlikely, but the fact that it could be done signifies that you do not have to be "unimaginable powerful" to create a universe.
So how is energy Timeless, space less and immaterial? It cannot have a beginning or an end, it is more of potential than a material. While it does have substance, as it can interact, it is space less as it can never be interacted with. It is immaterial in the same way.
But in the words of Richard Feynman "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."[2]
This may seem like I am granting the opponent his point on the assertion that a cause of the universe must be timeless, space less and immaterial. However I am not, I am merely showing that I was correct when I said that energy is all of the above.

As I said before, you just took his word to be fact. One thing that really annoys me is when theists take logic to be law in debates. They have multiple arguments for God, based on logic, and then refuse to accept that just because something is logical, that does not make it correct. Logically, a universe ruled by a benevolent God would not have Rape or Murder.
To further explain my argument about the ability to apply the KCA to everything including God, I will give more detail on my reasoning (even though I have already provided more than enough).
I said that you cannot make the claim that the KCA applies to anything if you cannot prove that it applies to anything. I clarified that when I said this I meant in terms of theories that are supposed to apply to everything. I.E I say that nothing can be truly transparent. Unless I can prove this applies to everything, I cannot claim that it applies to anything, as it is supposed to apply to EVERYTHING. If I do, I am in fact making a rule which only applies to certain groups of things. This isn't a law. So the KCA must be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to it's existence. A.K.A everything. Since the argument implies that God has existed for ever, he exists. (If it is accurate) But because this argument applies to God now, or does not apply to anything, unless you can prove that God did not have a beginning, the argument is redundant. This is because the argument suggests that God caused everything as everything had a beginning, but nothing caused God because he is eternal. So where is your proof that God is eternal. This is perhaps the least supported assumption I have ever come across in a debate. The whole element of this proving God revolves around a statement which is totally unsupported.

Throughout that has been my point. The KCA has no evidence to support it and is more so evidence against god. In this debate I had the burden of proof to show that. I have done so. However my opponent has not provided any evidence as to how the argument is either supported, or just a valid argument. He would have been arguing both if he had argued either. However this entire debate, he has, in a way argued for me.
How? Well every single one of the arguments from CON was unsupported. As he was arguing that the Kalam Cosmological Argument was correct/valid, we can conclude that the KCA it's self is unsupported. If it was not, con would have been able to come up with some supported evidence. However, as it is now the last round, he can only extend his previous arguments, rebut and summarize. No new information.

The physical God point has been a major one in this debate. I (pro) have argued that if the KCA holds, God cannot have created the universe. My evidence was that as the entire KCA is based upon the fact that the universe has a cause, but not God. Therefore God does not exist in our universe. I will now give a definition of Universe:
"The totality of existence"[3]
So nothing can exist outside of our universe (yes I am well aware of the multiverse theory, so let's say, A universe instead). It is the totality of matter, energy, space and phenomena. Therefore, if God exists outside of a universe, he cannot possibly be physical. E.G of a substance capable of interacting with anything in our universe. So he did not create the universe. This point kind of argues it's self. Nothing outside of a universe is anything. So how, pray tell, can something that is, as you said, "immaterial" react with something that is material?
However the opposition has argued the contrary in such a fashion: That God can actually interact with our universe, and that not enough evidence has been given as to why he cannot. He said "How would this, however, damage the KCA in the slightest or show that it is ridiculous?"
Obviously I believe that the prop version of this argument. As already explained, this damages the KCA hugely by proving that something immaterial and not in our universe can't intervene with our universe. So God could not have created the universe if the KCA is correct. So therefore, if it is correct, it is incorrect, which proves my point that it is invalid and ridiculous.
In summary, I believe that the KCA is a ridiculous argument because it is based on a horribly unsupported assertion, it argues for the proposition's side in that it proves God cannot be physical and it follows that one could not have created a physical universe, and that it cannot be true, because it's logic is so far off that it contradicts it's self.

Thanks for listening and I urge you to vote prop.

Sources:
[1] = http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...
[2] = Richard Feynman, in The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1964) Volume I, 4-1 / (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
[3] = http://en.wikipedia.org...
Exactly 8000 characters
Clash

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for his response and for this great debate. In what follows now, I will summarise this debate and show why Pro has unsuccessfully defended his claims and arguments.


Unimaginable Powerful

Pro said that to say that something unimaginable powerful caused the universe doesn't make sense. Why? Pro never answers that. Pro simply just made a baseless claim and then moved on without supporting it, something which he have done in this entire debate. But indeed, to say that something unimaginable powerful caused the universe is not based on assertion, it is rather based on common sense. I think everybody would agree that whatever caused something as big and amazing as the universe must have been extremely powerful. What else would it be, weak? We are now talking about the whole universe, something which is bigger than what we humans can even imagine, and something which contains billions of planets and galaxies. To say that what caused this was not something unimaginable powerful, would be nonsensical.

Pro also said that it is possible that humans can create the universe. If we are going to talk possibility, then pretty much everything is possible. The fact of the matter is that no evidences have been given by Pro to prove this claim, not even that it is possible that humans can create a universe. This claim must be dismissed.

William Lane Craig

Pro made some attacks on WLC. I'm not going to give an answer to these attacks, because all these attacks on WLC has nothing to do with the topic of this debate. However, I am going to answer one thing. As you can remember, I quoted WLC saying: "For the effect of the universe to begin in time the cause must be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time." Now, Pro said that this is just an assertion because I have not supported it. Well, since Pro seems to have a difficulty with this quote, I will again quote William Lane Craig where he explains his position:

"The difficulty that arises in the case of the cause of the beginning of the universe is that we seem to have a peculiar case of state/event causation: the cause is a timeless state but the effect is an event that occurred at a specific moment in the finite past. Such state/event causation doesn't seem to make sense, since a state sufficient for the existence of its effect should have a state as its effect.

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present."[1]

So Pro is completely wrong in saying that this is just an assertion, because WLC gives us good reasons as to why we should believe that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. To give reasons to support something doesn't sound like an assertion to me.

Also, remember the apple analogy which Pro presented. I clearly refuted this analogy in my previous round when I made it clear that an event cause (i.e., a non-personal entity) cannot account for the beginning of the universe. As everybody can clearly see from Pro's previous and last round, he has not successfully defended his apple analogy. In fact, he almost says nothing on this. He only said "My apple analogy was used because of how poorly explained this point was", and then he just moved on to another topic. We can rightly say that Pro's apple analogy has been conceded.

Energy

Pro said that energy existed before the big bang. Did he give any evidences to support this claim? No. Pro also said again that energy can never be created and destroyed. Recall that I asked in my previous round, "But even if we grant that this is true (that energy can never be created and destroyed), how would it damage the KCA or show that it is ridiculous?" Once again, Pro did not answer this question and thus, this whole energy nonsense fails.

Pro said that it is possible that energy could create a universe. Not only does this make no sense, but no evidences have been given to support this claim, not even that it is possible that energy could create a universe.

Lastly, remember that Pro claimed that energy is timeless, space less, and immaterial. I asked Pro to support this claim with some evidences, but he surely has not. In fact, he refutes his own point by quoting Richard Feynman who made it very clear that we have no knowledge of what energy is. How can you say that energy is that and this, and at the same time admit that we have no knowledge of what energy is? Pro's case is incoherent at best. Furthermore, even if we grant that energy is timeless, space less, and immaterial, this wouldn't really prove anything. Being timeless, space less, and immaterial is not alone enough to make you the cause of the universe. As I have explained and showed with good reasons, the cause of the universe must also be personal and powerful. Energy cannot be said to be this, especially not personal.

The Universe

Pro said that nothing can exist outside of our universe. Again, no evidences have been given whatsoever to support this assertion. Pro himself agreed that the universe had a cause, but that God wasn't this cause. So how can he say that nothing can exist outside of the universe? Does Pro believe that whatever caused the universe existed in the universe itself before it even caused it, or that it existed in the universe at the same time as it caused it? If so, then Pro is believing something which is impossible. Whatever caused the universe must be outside the universe, because you have to first be outside of the universe in order to cause it. I made this clear in my previous round as some readers may notice, but it seems like I apparently have to make this fact clear again.

Pro said that if God exists outside of a universe, he cannot possibly be physical. This is true, but what is Pro's point? That God therefore cannot exist or be the cause of the universe? If so, then this claim must be completely dismissed because no reasons whatsoever has been to given to show why this is true.

Pro said that something immaterial and not in our universe can't intervene with our universe. But even if we grant that this is true, how would it therefore follow that God could not have created the universe? I also asked this in my previous round and not surprisingly, Pro has once again not given any answer or explanation on this, nor has he given us any good reasons as to why we should believe that this is true.

Pro moved on to say that the KCA must be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence. This is confusing. What does it mean to say that the KCA must be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence? In what way must it be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence? Also, why must the KCA be proved to work on everything which has a beginning to its existence? Pro doesn't answer any of this, and to do that is important. As it now stands, Pro doesn't give me much to work on. And nor has Pro given any evidences to prove this claim.

Lastly, Pro asked where my proofs are for supporting my belief that God is eternal. As I said previously, there must exist an uncaused cause due to the absurdity of an infinite regress, in other words an indefinite chain of causes. I, as well as most other Theists, would say that this uncaused being is God. After all, what else then God is believed to be uncaused (i.e., eternal)?


Pro has not successfully defended his case that the KCA is ridiculous. Pro's arguments have been refuted and most of his claims have been shown to be completely unwarranted. I therefore urge the readers to vote Con.

_______

Sources

[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by giraffelover 4 years ago
giraffelover
Whoever said the KCA says everything that exists must have a cause misread it. It actually says whatever BEGINS to exist must have a cause. Therefore, if someone (God) exists without beginning, He would not NEED a cause.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Looks like the spelling has been fixed in the title. That's great except that now it's gonna break the short link.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
@Deadlykriss

Nonono, you've clearly misunderstood. "Rediculous" is directly related to bad arguments for god that are actually evidence against god. I know, the similarity got me at first also.
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
No that's "ridiculous". What's "rediculous"?
Posted by TheMolestacher 4 years ago
TheMolestacher
@lit.wakefeild Rediculous means a bad argument, not valid and actually evidence against god. hope that helps
Posted by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
It's like purplicious, but less bluriffic.
Posted by lit.wakefield 4 years ago
lit.wakefield
define "rediculous"
Posted by callmesuperboo 4 years ago
callmesuperboo
Con's gonna need some good luck in this one.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
TheMolestacherClashTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: First, PRO showed that the KCA can be used to support both gods and no-gods. CON, as described by PRO resorted to massive assertion fallacies; CON's use of WLC as a source automatically disqualifies him as using the most reliable source, particularly as con uses it simply as an argument from authority with no rational basis to accept those assertions. Finally, CON loses on grammar because of both awful grammar (as noted by PRO) and his quotes of WLC to support his argument, which themselves lacked any real contextual meaning for various utterance therein.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
TheMolestacherClashTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: It's a pretty big burden of proof to claim the KCA 'ridiculous' as opposed to merely unsound. Many of Pro's 'arguments' appeared quite weak, and Con adequately debunked them.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
TheMolestacherClashTied
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: Obviously a victory for Con -- Pro made a quite large Burden of Proof in the word "ridiculous," and he unfortunately failed to meet it. Con adequately refuted all of his objections.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
TheMolestacherClashTied
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: While I agree with the premise, Pro failed to make the most damning and irrefutable argument; indeed, his arguments were weak and unconvincing. For the record, the argument that would have cemented the debate would have called into question the P2 (as posted by Con) of the KCA. That P2 is an unproven assumption, though widely accepted. The KCA as posted by Con does not address the nature of the "cause", it only states that such a cause exists; so, if one accepts that P2 is true, then the KCA is accurate and not ridiculous.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 4 years ago
Sojourner
TheMolestacherClashTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's burden was to prove that KCA is ridiculous (deserving of ridicule). Although Pro did ridicule KCA quite often, I did not see where Pro successfully exposed the absurdity of the argument in a sufficient manner (ex.: poor rebuttal to the WLC quote). In contrast, Con provided reasoned support for the validity of KCA. It wasn't the best defense of KCA I've ever read, but at a minimum he upheld his burden to show that KCA is not ridiculous.