The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Fruitytree
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God Is Sound

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...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,268 times Debate No: 34882
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con


Introduction


The Kalam Cosmological Argument specifically, is as follows:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.[1]

Self-evidently, this is not an argument for God's existence but merely an argument for a cause of the universe. An additional premise is needed to show that God exists:

C. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.[2]

Rules/ Stipulations

The burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is in fact sound (which, in the context of this debate, includes the necessary additional premise). My burden is to undermine the Kalam Cosmological Argument to the point where there is reasonable doubt hanging over the truth of the conclusion based on the argument.
The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his/ her opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:

"No argument will be posted here as agreed."

PS. The logical validity of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is assumed for the sake of debate. This debate will be over the truth of the premises.

Sources

[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[2] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

Fruitytree

Pro

I thank Rational_thinker for instigating this debate.


I will start by analysing each premise and show how sound this argument is:


P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.


Law that never failed, and how would it, if it failed it would just mean our universe is chaotic, for only due to this fundamental law have we been able to study science and physics and develop technology.


This is similar to an axiom, and the way to show it isn't true is simple, you just need to figure something that do begin to exist, yet it has no cause!! it already sounds foolish and the reason is that, the idea of something beginning to exist with no cause is nonsense and dangerous, beside never having been scientifically recorded.


Example of things that began to exist (inside our universe) : life , galaxies, continents, stars, civilizations, earthquakes, rain .. and so on, we do not know of one thing that began to exist by magic and my opponent is welcome to find one.


The cause is to be determined, and it usually can be a combination of factors or a sentient being with will and ability at least:


For rain, the factors would be a sufficient cause.


The broken plate in my kitchen, my daughter is the rational cause, for there are no factors that I know that would pull the plate from the middle of the table down on the floor!!!

A machine : a man , for man is a sentient being with will ability inteligence ,enough to make a machine that cannot be the fruit of the combination of natural factors.


P2. The universe began to exist.



Although I'm not sure how Al kindi knew it, but the universe still began to exist, it wasn't as it is since ever, and won't remain forever, and today, thanks to science, we know it more than ever!


But as I know my nice opponent will catch me on this I will have to explain my point, as from what we know about stars and galaxies and planets, that have a birth, a life cycle then a death so shall we assume about the universe that it had a birth , has a life cycle, and will certainly end.


P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.


The logical conclusion, but wait a minute, would the cause be a combination of factors, or a sentient being, for there are no factors known to exist in an empty space and cause a universe, the sentient being is the rational cause, a sentient, free willed, able, independent (from time and space), powerful, and knowledgeable, for each and every of these attributes is needed in order for a sentient being to create a universe from an empty space.


If one wants still to consider the combination of factors that would have lead to the existence of the universe, in an empty space with no energy nor matter, it is unlikely that there is any condition that would lead to any change. therefore this supposition is the most unlikely of the two.


Also to note that the universe isn't anything, it is a complexe combination of machines , that live and die in a regular harmony , that further supports the sentient being we call God as the cause of the universe.



Thus the kalam Cosmological argument for God is sound.


To RT.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con


Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause

My opponent asserts that this causal law is one that must hold for two reasons:


(i) If this causal law did not hold, the universe would be random and chaotic

(ii) This causal law is fundamental to science


The problem with (i) is that it begs the question against the universe being random and chaotic pertaining to certain areas. It is commonly accepted that randomness holds at the sub-atomic scale[1]. The problem with (ii) is similar. According to the most widely accepted interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (indeterministic interpretations), a quantum fluctuation stands in relation to a necessary condition, but a specific fluctuation will have no sufficient cause for why it occurs and happens spontaneously[2]. For ease involving conceptual analysis of quantum fluctuations, this illustration may help:



Deterministic interpretations which entail causes of these fluctuations are ad hoc, in that they are contrived in order to "get around the problem" of quantum randomness, and they also seem to force physicists to abandon locality unnecessarily[3]. While a quantum fluctuation stands in relation to the quantum vacuum, there is a good chance that there truly is no sufficient cause for each quantum fluctuation that occurs. This means that a proper causal process is not present. As Wes Morriston argues, if something begins to exist that stands in relation to a necessary condition, but has no sufficient cause, then this is an event without a cause[4]. The term "necessary cause" only has merit when dealing with a sufficient cause. Without a sufficient cause with regards to quantum mechanics, we are simply left with an unstable necessary condition with no cause. One can argue semantics and claim that a necessary condition is still a cause, even if there is a lacking sufficient cause. However, this is not what most people mean when they think of causation. Delving into this line of rebuttal would be mere tautology, and would be fruitless.

Here are supporting quotes from experts in the field with regards to causeless beginnings:

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville[5]

"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist[6]

It seems as if my opponent's appeal to ridicule pertaining to how uncaused beginnings are nowhere to be found in science is likely to be false. This is due the problems I mentioned earlier with deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the uselessness of claiming a necessary condition without a sufficient condition is a cause.

Pro also makes the claim that things that begin to exist are usually due to a combination of factors, or a sentient being. However, a sentient being's choices do involve a combination of factors. My opponent here is drawing a false distinction in context. Sentient choices are caused by prior neural activity in the brain[7][8].

Fruitytree has not properly defended the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist


The universe could have only began to exist if the A-Theory of time is true, as the champion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (William Lane Craig) himself admits:

"From start to finish, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang... If time is tenseless [which B-Theory entails], then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig[9]

When it comes to the B-Theory of time, there is no "begins to exist". The past, present and future all exist (in a 4d or n+1d block), with the present image seen on progression through this block, and being no more real than those before or after. The Big Bang would just exist as a fixated point on a tenseless timeline. Many philosophers and scientists adhere to notion that this view is proven:

"As it turns out, it is actually impossible to find any objective and universally acceptable definition of “all of space, taken at this instant.” This follows … from Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The idea of the block universe is, thus, more than an attractive metaphysical theory. It is a well-established scientific fact." - Rudy Rucker[10]

"Special relativity [by itself] appears to provide a definite proof of the block universe view." -Vesslin Petkov

The reason for the support for B-Theory is due to Special Relativity. Einstein's theory has been tested time and time again, and has passed flying colors[11]. The most rational interpretation of this theory is the Minkowski space-time view[12]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[13]). This interpretation spells death for A-Theory, because A-Theory entails a universal "now" moment. However, the Minkowski space-time view entails that there is no universal "now" moment, and is the most scientifically sound interpretation. Therefore, we have a solid scientific basis for the claim that A-Theory is false. Even defenders of A-Theory agree that it is the least accepted view out of the two theories:

"The A-theory is almost certainly a minority view among contemporary philosophers with an opinion about the metaphysics of time.” - Dean Zimmerman[14]

Here is an illustration showing the difference between to the two theories (A-Theory on the right, B-Theory on the left):



However, if A-Theory is false, then the universe did not begin to exist. Therefore, premise 2 here is in deep trouble indeed.

Here are some supporting quotes from physicists in support of B-Theory:

"The past, present, and future are all equally real; they all exist." - Brian Greene[15]

"If you believe the laws of physics, there is just as much reality to the future and the past, as there is to the present moment." - Sean Carrol[15]

"The past is not gone, and the future isn't non-existent. The past, present, and future are all existing in exactly the same way." - Max Tegmark[15]

Even if A-Theory Is True...

Even if A-Theory is true (which I gave good reasons to believe that it is not), "a starting point coming into being from no starting point" does not follow from "a starting point", and is not synonymous with "a starting point". Arguing in favor of The Big Bang, or a finite past, is futile without external support for this very reason.

Premise 3: The Universe Has A Cause

I gave good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe the first two premises are false. Also, the argument for why the cause must be sentient was already taken care of in my refutation of the first premise.

Conclusion

My opponent did not meet her burden of proof; I exceeded mine. Thus, as it stands, the resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://www.technologyreview.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[4] http://commonsenseatheism.com...
[5] http://atheism.about.com...
[6] http://www.infidels.org...
[7] http://www.consciousentities.com...
[8] http://www.nature.com...
[9] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184
[10] The Fourth Dimension, p. 149
[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[13] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[14] http://fas-philosophy.rutgers.edu...
[15] Video Source
Fruitytree

Pro

Thank you RT.


Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause:


RT:"
a specific fluctuation will have no sufficient cause for why it occurs and happens spontaneously"

Does no sufficient cause means unknown cause ? for we also plenty of things we don't know the exact cause, but still would assume there is a cause. and these although they don't seem to have sufficient cause to fluctuate the way they do, they still have enough cause to fluctuate in the first place, so the cause of the beginning of the fluctuation is there, only the form it takes doesn't seem to have a specific cause.


So your counter example isn't compatible with KCA first premise, it isn't for the beginning of the event, but for its couse which isn't our topic.

RT:""
Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville

"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist"


This seems to be a statement from ignorance, we don't know the cause therefore there is no cause ?! what is then the evidence there is no cause at all, what if we just happen to ignore the cause ?! is it even rational to consider these things may begin to happen spontaneously without sufficient cause, and even better without any cause ?! How can anyone even know there is absolutely no cause ?

RT: " a sentient being's choices do involve a combination of factors."


Good remark Rational , but you see, it's not the combination of factors that cause the sentient being to sit or stand, but his will is what creates the combination of factors.


When I split the causes in two categories, it's because there are beginings who are directly caused by a sentient being, and others that are indirectly caused by a sentient being, for these last, it would seem that a combination of factors lead to the beginning of the event, but this never means there is no sentient being behind it.


Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist


RT: "
if A-Theory is false, then the universe did not begin to exist. Therefore, premise 2 here is in deep trouble indeed"


The universe began to exist, whether A-theory of time is true or false. I was born, and I will die, these are facts and they do not depend on what theory of time you want to use.


Let's assume B-theory of time is the most adequate, the universe didn't begin to exist doesn't follow from the past ,present and future being equally real! the equal reality of time doesn't equate the nature of the events, nor does it equate the dates. it just says the past events exist as much as the present and future events do, not more.


RT: "a starting point coming into being from no starting point" does not follow from "a starting point"


It's rather : " a universe came into being , and that very event is the starting point for the time we agree to use"


Premise 3: The Universe Has A Cause


You didn't succeed to show that the universe doesn't need a cause, or if it needed a cause, that the cause doesn't need to be sentient. and I did show already that the universe can only be as it is as the fruit of a sentient being work.


In conclusion: you put too much salt in your dish.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

I appreciate my opponent's response. However, it is based on numerous misunderstandings

Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause

My opponent assumes without justification that there is just an unknown cause with regards to certain quantum events. However, it is not that there us an unknown cause, it is that there is no cause at all. Not only have experiments not picked up any cause where there should be when there are causes of events, but Bell's Theorem proved that there could not be any local hidden variables doing any causing[1]. The only way for there to be a cause for these fluctuations, is if there are non-local hidden variables. However, this would require a deterministic interpretation. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is inderministic, and deterministic interpretations are ad hoc and violate Occam's Razor which makes them far less plausible.

Regardless, the burden of proof is on my opponent to show that the first premise is true. Therefore, she has to disprove deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics (or at least argue for why these interpretations are more plausible), and show why the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong. She has not done this. Therefore, we are left without any reason to believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is actually true. I quoted physicists who reject this first premise that my opponent erroneously claims is so close to science. Many philosophers think this premise is false as well, not just physicists:

"Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition." - Quentin Persifor Smith. American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan[2]

A vacuum fluctuation is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)[3]. Here are some more supporting quotes:

"In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion." - Paul Davies[4]

This means that energy can begin to exist without any prior determining causes. This is why it is rather laughable that my opponent has argued that some causal principle is fundamental to science and philosophy. This causal principle is commonly rejected in science and philosophy. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics outright rejects this causal principle and actually invokes acausal principles, and it is the most adhered to interpretation. My opponent must show why the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong, which seems like a hard task to achieve (the fluctuations are only caused if deterministic interpretations are true). I have shown why these deterministic interpretations are problematic in an explanatory sense.

Not only that, she did not even give any reason to believe this causal principle is true in the first place. Thus, even if she shows that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are correct, she still has to give a reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause. As it stands, we are left with no reason to believe this causal principle is true, and we have good reasons to believe it is false.

Also:

"Good remark Rational , but you see, it's not the combination of factors that cause the sentient being to sit or stand, but his will is what creates the combination of factors." - Pro

My opponent commits the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. Neural activity causes conscious states, and I even provided sources to back this up in my last round. Neural activity can be traced in the brain seconds before its causal effects reach a human's consciousness. Since causes come before their effects, then we know that neural activity is what causes conscious states and not the other way around. Therefore, my opponent is mistaken.

Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist

"The universe began to exist, whether A-theory of time is true or false." - Pro

The above is false, as my opponent does not understand B-Theory. If B-Theory is true, then the universe is tenseless and eternal because temporal becoming is just an illusion. This means that The Big Bang would just exist as a fixed point on 4d or n +1d block, and the universe would never actually come into being at The Big Bang. Therefore, if the B-Theory is true, then premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. The universe did not begin to exist. I gave many reasons to believe that the B-Theory of time is true.

"I was born, and I will die, these are facts and they do not depend on what theory of time you want to use."

My opponent's birth was just as real as her future death, and is just a real as right now though (I even provided quotes from leading physicists in the field to back this up with, which is based on Special Relativity). This means that she never began to exist, nothing begins to exist. Something can only begin to exist if the A-Theory of time is true. Since my opponent does not seem to have a grasp on the metaphysics of time, I think it is clear that her arguments are worthless to say the least. Until my opponent proves that the A-Theory of time is true, then we have no reason to believe the universe began to exist.

"Let's assume B-theory of time is the most adequate, the universe didn't begin to exist doesn't follow from the past ,present and future being equally real!"

Yes it does. Things can only come into being if temporal becoming is real. If the past, present, and future are all equally real, then time is tenseless and temporal becoming is an illusion. This means, that things only appear to come into being, but ontologically, nothing comes into being. Once more, my opponent just does not understand B-Theory and its implications. Her arguments can be dismissed based on her misunderstanding.

"It's rather : " a universe came into being , and that very event is the starting point for the time we agree to use"- Pro

My opponent has not supported her claim that the universe began to exist with anything. This makes the above rather trivial.

Even if all of my arguments fail (which they do not), my opponent still loses because she has not supported either of the premises.

Conclusion

Fruitytree has given no reasons to believe that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, I gave plenty of reasons to believe it is false that were not properly objected to. Fruitytree also has given no reasons to believe that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, I gave plenty of reasons to believe it is false that were not properly objected to. My opponent has not even shown that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are true, and she has not shown how the B-Theory of time is false (the theory that has to be false in order for the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be true).

As it stands, the resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[2] http://www.secularhumanism.org...
[3] http://www.infidels.org...
[4] Davies, Paul. 1994. The Last Three Minutes. New York: BasicBooks

Fruitytree

Pro

Thanks again RT.

Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause


There are plausible causes to quatum fluctuatuins covered in the book of: Edward Nelson: Quantum Fluctuations, the book contains discussion of possible physical causes of quantum fluctuations in terms of an interaction with a background field. The author gives a critical analysis of stochastic mechanics as a candidate for a realistic theory of physical processes, discussing measurement, local causality in the sense of Bell, and the failure of the theory in its present form to satisfy locality.

If not everything that Has a beginning had a cause, then we wouldn't assume casualty in everything, which is the very reason of our scientific advancement.


Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist


Now RT I want to bring to your attention to the fact that you call quantum fluctuations "a beginning" when then you refure "beginnings " in the second premise following the B-theory of time?! so there either is a problem with the B-theory, or that the sentences as we formulate them are not fit to the theory and need to be reformulated to fit the theory . and the KCA wouldn't look the same as it is.


I honestly can't say Determinism is right all the time, or indeterminism is, it will depend on what context you use them for. In our context and as we speak of beginnings and about things that require a time passage, we get to use the indeterminism A-theorie of time:


"Now I tried to present to Einstein-Parmenides as strongly as I could my conviction that a clear stand must be made against any idealistic view of time. And I also tried to show that, though the idealistic view was compatible with both determinism and indeterminism, a clear stand should be made in favour of an "open" universe—one in which the future was in no sense contained in the past or the present, even though they do impose severe restrictions on it. I argued that we should not be swayed by our theories to give up realism (for which the strongest arguments were based on common sense), though I think that he was ready to admit, as I was, that we might be forced one day to give it up if very powerful arguments (of Gödel's type, say) were to be brought against it. I therefore argued that with regard to time, and also to indeterminism (that is, the incompleteness of physics), the situation was precisely similar to the situation with regard to realism. Appealing to his own way of expressing things in theological terms, I said: if God had wanted to put everything into the world from the beginning, He would have created a universe without change, without organisms and evolution, and without man and man's experience of change. But He seems to have thought that a live universe with events unexpected even by Himself would be more interesting than a dead one.
—Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography, pp150



A sentient being Vs a combination of factors.


As we both agree about the existence of the human being, and that he is a sentiant being,I will use him to show that He controlls the combination of factors, eventually to wash his hands.


John's hands were dirty, 5 minutes later they are clean, the cause is John washed his hands, the sentient being used wated and soap, when he saw his hands are dirty and cleaned them. when he wanted to clean his hands his brain obeyed and moved his feet towards the washroom, then when he wanted again his brain obeyed and got the soap with one hand and opened the water tap with the other , then for he wanted it his brain obeyed and his hands washed one another !!


The Neural activity happens after the sentient being wills to do something, This is the very reason why men are responsible before the law! if the combination of factors where what determines our actions , we wouldn't be sentient beings , but plants.

And the "Will" as it is made by the spirit, and not the brain, isn't yet known by science, and may never be, except by psychology and reasoning.


Our body obeys our brain, our brain obeys ourselves.


Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Premise 1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause

"There are plausible causes to quantum fluctuations covered in the book of: Edward Nelson: Quantum Fluctuations, the book contains discussion of possible physical causes of quantum fluctuations in terms of an interaction with a background field. The author gives a critical analysis of stochastic mechanics as a candidate for a realistic theory of physical processes, discussing measurement, local causality in the sense of Bell, and the failure of the theory in its present form to satisfy locality." - Pro

If one reviews my previous arguments, they will realise that I agreed that there are deterministic interpretations which involve quantum fluctuations being caused. However, the claim that there is local causality is not generally accepted. This is because Alain Aspect and Paul Kwiat ran experiments that actually found violations of the relevant Bell inequalities up to 242 standard deviations[1]. If this is the case, then this shows that there cannot be any hidden variables unless they are non-local. My opponent has not refuted my claims that deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics are ad hoc and violations of Occam's Razor. This means, in the context of this debate, it stands that deterministic interpretations are less plausible.

"If not everything that Has a beginning had a cause, then we wouldn't assume casualty in everything, which is the very reason of our scientific advancement." - Pro

The problem is that causality is not assumed in everything, and it is not assumed in quantum physics. As I have already argued, causality is commonly assumed false at the quantum scale. My opponent simply has bare assertions. I have supported the notion that we cannot just assume causality, because it is not generally accepted in science and philosophy due to the apparently spontaneous behavior of sub-atomic events:

"Where is the evidence that everything that begins to exist has a cause?...Quantum particles do apparently jump in and out of existence from nothing, but this behavior seems to be quite random. The closest examples that I know of to creation ex nihilo are non-causal." - Professor of philosophy, Peter Millican[2]

Additionally, Alexander's model of comic origins[3] describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event (without a sufficient cause) with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0). It is plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without an initial cause, which then decayed with the inflationary era beginning; and after this era ended, the universe evolved according to the standard Big Bang model. Space-time and energy would emerge out of a void with no space or time. This means that there is no infinite regress implied by the model.

"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Professor of Physics, Alexander Vilenkin[4]

We are left with no reason from my opponent as to why we should just naively assume that causality applies everywhere, and to everything. She has not met her burden of proof with regards to Premise 1; I have went above and beyond it. This negates the resolution. However, what fun would it be to not delve into the second premise as well?

Premise 2: Everything That Begins To Exist Has a Cause

"Now RT I want to bring to your attention to the fact that you call quantum fluctuations "a beginning" when then you refure "beginnings " in the second premise following the B-theory of time?!" - Pro

I never denied the above. It the B-Theory is true, then quantum fluctuations do not ontologically come into being, but only appear to come into being due to the illusion of temporal becoming. Here is an illustration to demonstrate what I am speaking about:



With the B-Theory of time, all time slices are equally real. A particular leg movement would never actually come into being, or anything, as it is all ontologically real.

Now, with regards to the contradiction, I was not bringing forward a cumulative case here. My argument is that either refutation (either the refutation to Premise 1, or Premise 2) defeats the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Therefore, the point my opponent is making is trivial. If my refutations contradict each other then we can delete either one, and the remainder would still refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument regardless.

"In our context and as we speak of beginnings and about things that require a time passage, we get to use the indeterminism A-theorie of time"

My opponent cannot just assume the A-Theory of time without any justification (I actually gave justification for B-Theory in my previous rounds). Regardless, if she assumes indeterminism then this shows that not everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause - and my argument from Wes Morriston, that was dropped, already argued for the notion that this is necessary for a causal process - so I am baffled as to why my opponent would take this route. Anyway, my opponent quotes Karl Popper for some reason. However Karl Popper commits the fallacy of appealing to consequence. The reason why the realism of temporal passage is denied is because of the scientific success of the Minkowski space-time interpretation of Special Relativity. My opponent never refuted the Minkowski interpretation, or how it suggests B-Theory. Many even adhere to the notion that quantum mechanics itself proves B-Theory, like Willard Van Orman Quine and Hilary Putnam[5][6].

Fruitytree has not met her burden of proof with regards to Premise 2; I have went above and beyond it. This negates the resolution alone.

Personal Cause

"John's hands were dirty, 5 minutes later they are clean, the cause is John washed his hands, the sentient being used wated and soap, when he saw his hands are dirty and cleaned them. when he wanted to clean his hands his brain obeyed and moved his feet towards the washroom, then when he wanted again his brain obeyed and got the soap with one hand and opened the water tap with the other , then for he wanted it his brain obeyed and his hands washed one another !!" - Pro

Yes, but what caused John to do all of this was prior neural activity in the brain (a combination of factors). My opponent did not refute the scientific studies I provided in the first round that show that prior neural activity causes conscious states[7][8]. Since causes come before their effects, and the neural activity occurs before it reaches the consciousness, then we know the neural effects are what is doing the causing.

The rest of this section from Pro is nothing more than baseless claims about how spirituality has something to do with "will", which begs the question against metaphysical naturalism. She claims that will controls brain states, but brain states are what causes that "will" in the first place.

Conclusion

Fruitytree has not supported the KCA to the extent required. I went above and beyond my burden of proof.

As it stands, the resolution has been negated

Sources

[1] Kwiat, P. G., et al. (1999) Ultrabright source of polarization-entangled photons,Physical Review A60, R773-R776
[2] Video Source
[3] http://mukto-mona.net...
[4] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)
[5] A philosopher Looks At Quantum Mechanics again, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 56, pp 615 - 634.
[6] Word and Object, Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
[7] http://www.consciousentities.com...
[8] http://www.nature.com...

PS. Just a reminder to Pro that her next round must only consist of "No argument will be posted here as agreed."

Thank you.
Fruitytree

Pro

"no argument will be posted here as agreed"


Thank you Rationnal for the nice debate.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"In contrast, Con only really ever asserted opinion, and blindly dismissed the experiments without rational cause."

I think you meant "Pro".
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
Thank you.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Thank you for the debate Fruitytree, it was fun!
Posted by Fruitytree 3 years ago
Fruitytree
Noted
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I said "A-Theory on the right, B-Theory on the left" in my last round when I meant to say "A-Theory on the left, B-Theory on the right".
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Here's an explanation of categorical syllogisms:

http://www.philosophypages.com...
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Fair enough, next time I will be more careful where I get my information from.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Consider this statement:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause to its existence.

Where is 'P'? Where is 'Q'?

There's a difference between a hypothetical syllogism (like modus tollens or modus ponens) and a categorical syllogism. The KCA is a categorical syllogism.

Now consider this premise:

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause.

In this case, it's clear what 'P' and 'Q' are. P is "the universe began to exist," and Q is "the universe has a cause."

WinteryKnight is mistaken.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Perhaps I am confused...
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I thought the Kalam Cosmological Argument is characterized as such:

"Understanding the logical form of the kalam argument

The form of the kalam argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference. (Here"s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true"

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JonMilne 3 years ago
JonMilne
Rational_Thinker9119FruitytreeTied
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 went into considerably more detail with his arguments, especially highlighting the fact that there are actually experiments that support his position. In contrast, Con only really ever asserted opinion, and blindly dismissed the experiments without rational cause.