The Instigator
thp078
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Jerryboy
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The KCA that William Lane Craig uses proves Christianity to be false.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
thp078
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 37723
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

thp078

Pro

Ave.

In this debate, I will be arguing that the KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) that William Lane Craig uses, if true, disproves Christianity.

For this debate, the burden of proof will be shared. You must show that the KCA that William Lane Craig uses at least supports Christianity's validity.


The aforementioned argument will be summarized as follows:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.

2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

4. Additional conclusion: the cause of the universe is a spaceless, timeless, changeless being, and powerful and intelligent enough to create a universe.

We will each be basing our arguments on the assumptions that each of these points are true.


Rules:

1. Be polite and courteous.

2. The summarized KCA (Craig edition) cannot be disagreed with in any way.

3. If Bible verses are to be used, they must be from the King James version.

4. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source.

5. Con must be a Christian (Mormons do not count).

5. If any of these rules are broken, the one who broke the rule(s) is to be assumed as having forfeited the entire debate.

Debate format:

1st round: acceptance.

2nd round: opening arguments.

3rd round: responsive arguments.

4th round: closing arguments.

Best of luck to my opponent, and I look forward to a good debate.

Vale.
Jerryboy

Con

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.

2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

4. Additional conclusion: the cause of the universe is a spaceless, timeless, changeless being, and powerful and intelligent enough to create a universe.
This is interesting because the presenter of the notion that KCA disproves the existence of God does not present any argument. So I have to imagine an interpretation of the syllogism which would somehow accomplish this. But in my view the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound and it certainly doesn"t disprove the existent of a God. The only basis of an argument that I can discern which would see, tp disprove the existence of God is that the assumption that idea that the God who created everything in fact is subject to the notion of a infinite regress. This meta law which should only apply within the known universe itself could be thought to exist prior to the emergence of the universe from the singularity of the cosmic origin. If this is held then the notion that KCA disproves God existance depends on the application of a principle which exists within the universe to an entity who in order to create the universe would have to exist outside of the space/time continuum and who in fact is thought to have created space/time itself. The God theist hold didn"t begin to exist inside of time/space and therefore is not subject to any notions we might have about time/space. Furthermore if we hold this view "An infinite temporal regress of event is an actual infinite", but what about creator who created time itself? And indeed prior to Planck time, time and any notion of temporality, did not exist. No space, no time. No time, no space. This is science not religion. Unless time itself is infinite and existing separate of space the notion that the KCA disproves the idea of God simply has little merit for it would require time to be actually infinite which would be inconsistent and self negating in the first statement of the KCA. The notion that KCA disproves theism cannot be sustained because the only argument I can imagine assumes the creative act was subject to time when time itself was a necessary part of the the emergence of the universe and an element of creation. So unless time is infinite apart from the emergence of space and the deity we hold was subject to time and not its creator then the argument that the KCA can be thought to disprove the existence of God is without merit. Unless someone out there has a more substantial argument I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 1
thp078

Pro

Con has forfeited this debate by not following the debate format, which he agreed to by accepting this debate. Any further arguments by either myself or con should be disregarded.
Jerryboy

Con

Jerryboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
thp078

Pro

thp078 forfeited this round.
Jerryboy

Con

Jerryboy forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tala00131 4 years ago
tala00131
Well, that was interesting...
Posted by Sargon 4 years ago
Sargon
I forgot about that whole thing, Francis. Guess you're still stuck in the past.
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
O hai

@francis

He meant the ave/vale thing.

Kthnxbai
Posted by Franciscanorder 4 years ago
Franciscanorder
@ thp078

My apologies. Seems like you are. You did mention Kalam and WLC, and you did say "the aforementioned argument is summarized as follows.", later stating, "The summarized KCA (Craig edition) cannot be disagreed with in any way." It truly does seem to me as though you are claiming that your summary and the WLCKalam are the same thing.

But my comment was more of a joke anyway. Please ignore me.
Posted by thp078 4 years ago
thp078
Mischaracterized? I'm not claiming the two are the same argument.
Posted by Franciscanorder 4 years ago
Franciscanorder
@ Sargon

If the trend you speak of is mischaracterizing Kalam per WLC, then perhaps you did. ;)
Posted by Magic8000 4 years ago
Magic8000
Salve

Yes Sargon you started a trend

Kthnxbai
Posted by thp078 4 years ago
thp078
I want to say he used it when he debated Hitchens at Biola, but don't quote me on that. I realize that my summary doesn't incorporate every aspect of his argument, but I only wanted to debate the parts that I mentioned.
Posted by dannyc 4 years ago
dannyc
Where does Craig use this argument?
Posted by Sargon 4 years ago
Sargon
I guess I've started a trend on here.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
thp078JerryboyTied
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: Rules clearly state first round for acceptance... Con just started to argue