The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
tahir123
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence 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 4 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,160 times Debate No: 35609
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (4)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Argument

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


Rules/ Stipulations

The burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the KCA is a sound argument. My burden is to undermine the argument, and/ or the support for it. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:

"No argument will be posted here as agreed."

PS. My opponent also has to show that the hypothetical cause must be personal, otherwise the argument is not really an argument for God. Also, I would respectfully ask that nobody who has been a debate on the KCA with me recently accept this debate. I want to keep it fresh.
tahir123

Pro

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a rational proof for the existence of God. Everything that has a beginning must have a cause, The Universe has a beginning therefore it must have cause. The universe couldn't come from nothing because that is impossible, and we never observe anything coming from nothing, so there is no evidence to support that position. There was a Big Bang as science has proven so there has to be a cause for that Big Bang. Steven Hawking argues there was no time for a cause to exist because Time started at the Big Bang. This makes no sense how can something come from nothing again? I argue that God may exist in a dimension beyond time (since time is just a dimension) so a cause can exist beyond time. The Cause must also be personal because it had the will to create the universe with fine tuning. People argue for the multiverse theory that something simple creates universes so there is no need for a personal cause, but this goes against Occam's Razor which tells us not to invoke entities beyond necessity. Furthermore there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of a multiverse.

Also Science can not explain where life came from. It has yet to create even a single cell. All we have created from the Miller Urey Experiment are a few amino acids that are both left handed and right handed, but life requires only left handed amino acids and right handed amino acids are poisonous to life. Furthermore, amino acids can't be produced without RNA and DNA neither the can RNA or DNA be produced without amino acids, so life can't come from nonlife, also Fred Hoyle said that the chance of a single cell creating itself by chance is equivalent to a tornado blowing through a junk yard and creating an airplane, both are "impossible," so there must be an intelligent and personal designer who has a will to create life who created the universe. Atheism and Deism both collapse under my argument because the cause has to intervene in the universe to create life because there is no other logical explanation for our existence other than a personal God who created and intervenes in nature
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

My opponent's second paragraph about Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the resolution. I believe he is wrong in that regard, just as he is wrong on the KCA. However, since it is not relevant, it can be dismissed.

My Arguments

The synthetic a priori support for the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the metaphysical principle that something cannot come from nothing, or that out of nothing, nothing comes (ex nihilo nihil fit). However, it seems strange as to how this is really solid support for the first premise. Something can begin to exist from something and still be uncaused. Thus, even if ex nihilo nihil fit is true, the first premise could still be false. Causation as a whole is split up into two parts, or categories philosophically (even Aristotle's four causes can be split up in this way):

(i) Necessary Causation

(ii) Sufficient Causation

As Wes Morriston notes, if something came into being that stood in relation to necessary conditions, but with no sufficient conditions in the equation, then that would be something coming into being without a cause [1].

"How could it be that necessary, but not sufficient, conditions can cause something to come into existence? Causation requires both."[1]

This view of causation is even held my many physicists, and indicates that even if ex nihilo nihil fit is true, the first premise is still false. Many scientists use quantum mechanics to show that causation is not fundamental to science:

"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[2]

"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist[3]

Also, my opponent appeals to the standard Big Bang Model to try and show that the universe began to exist. However, the standard Big Bang model implies the universe had no beginning point.

There are three basic principles of mathematics I am going to be appealing to here:

1) n/0 (division by zero) entails a logical contradiction

What's 10 divided by 2? It's 5, because 10 split up evenly into two groups has 5 in each. 10 divided by 1? 10 in 1 group has 10. But 10 in 0 groups? What would that even mean?” [10]

2) Every real number is in between two real numbers[11]

3) There is no first decimal after zero (as I demonstrate below)

The singularity at t=0 proposed by The Big Bang theory posits temperature, density, and curvature that entail n/0. Since this is mathematically impossible and leads to contradiction, the singularity at t=0 could not have ontologically existed. If we delete the singularity at t=0, which is logically necessary, then there is no first state of the universe at any time in the past! This is because any state one could assert as the first state is preceded by another necessarily:

t=… 0.1 > 0.01 > 0.001 > 0.0001 > 0.00001 > 0.000001 > 0.0000001 > 00000001 > 0.000000001…

If there was a t=0, then one could appeal to Supertasks to claim there was a first state. However, without a t=0, then a first state is impossible. Every real number is in between two real numbers, so any state no matter how far back you go has to be preceded by another state not matter how small. Also, there cannot be any first decimal after 0 as well as I showed above.

“Take 0 and 1. Now… take out 0 (t=0) because that’s a singularity; a physically impossible state…There is no first decimal after 0.” –Quentin Persifor Smith. American contemporary philosopher, scholar and professor of philosophy at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan[4]

Due to these mathematical laws and the impossibility of a Big bang singularity, a first state of the universe is impossible. The universe did not begin to exist in the sense that there is a first state for any God to cause ex nihilo. Even if the universe has a finite past in years, there would be no actual first state which springs up from either “nothing”, or “something that is not the universe”, as any hypothetical state of the universe is preceded by another state of the universe. This means the universe never really truly begins to exist even under an A-Theory of time, if one accepts modern Cosmology.

Note: The argument above does not deny anything that happens after the singularity as far as The Big Bang model is concerned, the arguments just deny the singularity as it is logically incoherent.

Also, the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests on the A-Theory of time being true. Even the Champion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument agrees that if B-Theory is true; the argument is finished:

"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; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, 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[5].

The reason is that temporal becoming is a necessary condition for anything to come into being. If B-Theory is true though, then there is no temporal becoming.

We have good scientific grounds for the claim that B-Theory is true, and thus, the universe did not begin to exist. This assumption rests on Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Einstein's theory has been tested time and time again, and has passed flying colors. The most scientifically feasible interpretation of this theory is the Minkowski space-time view[6]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[7]), and it has more explanatory rigor with regards to time dilation and length contraction than other interpretations. This interpretation proves B-Theory but spells death for A-Theory, because A-Theory entails a universal "now" moment. The Minkowski space-time view entails that there is no universal "now" moment, and is the most scientifically sound interpretation.

Conclusion

Pro did not show why we must go with his broader view of causality, and he must address the fact that standard physics accept that virtual particles pop into existence uncaused. Also, I showed that the universe did not begin to exist if we assume the standard Big Bang model, and A-Theory. I also showed that the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails if B-Theory is true; and that B-Theory is probably true. Thus, the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is probably false.

Pro has not met his burden of proof; I went above and beyond mine. The resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://commonsenseatheism.com...
[2] http://atheism.about.com...
[3] http://www.infidels.org...
[4] http://www.closertotruth.com...
[5] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184
[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

tahir123

Pro

Con uses Quantum mechanics to justify something coming from nothing and something coming into existence without a cause, it has been argued that if you think you know quantum theory you don't know quantum theory (Richard Feynman)also quantum fluctuations may be coming from something (some hidden energy field or something not nothing) also you are quoting stephen hawking's book the Grand Design which was probably more for money and fame that stephen hawking wrote that book. If something can come from nothing or something come without a cause than why not you show us? My argument on abiogenesis was also used to prove that point. Life cannot come from non life and something can't come from nothing, those are observable and logical facts. The burden of proof is on you to prove that something can come from nothing, until you can do that we only have one logical explanation to the origin of the universe and that is some intelligent designer. Make something come from nothing if you are truthful. Quantum physics won't do because it hasn't been fully understood and as Richard Feynman said you don't know it. I am arguing with you in terms of common sense not hypothetical quantum weirdness. Something can't come from nothing, and it never happens and it has never been proven empirically that objects come from nothing (why don't stars of planets come from nothing why only virtual particles? How do you know they don't come from something invisible either?)

Also if t=0 at the Beginning of the Big bang how did t= 1, 2, or 3 after the big bang. Logically speaking how can something come without a cause. Time is a dimension and string theory suggests there are other dimensions how do you know there isn't an entity existing on a dimension beyond time who created the universe? The universe can't be infinite because then we won't be here, it must have a creator, if not make something come from nothing
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Con uses Quantum mechanics to justify something coming from nothing and something coming into existence without a cause."

According to the standard interpretations (indeterministic), this seems to be the case.

"It has been argued that if you think you know quantum theory you don't know quantum theory (Richard Feynman)."

We have a very good understanding of quantum theory. 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)[1]. Pro has given us no reason to reject indeterministic interpretations, for a deterministic one.

"also quantum fluctuations may be coming from something (some hidden energy field or something not nothing)"

Yes, they could be. However, even if they came from something, that doesn't mean they had a cause. That original "something" could just be a necessary condition, without any sufficient conditions. Pro still has not told us which view of causality he is endorsing here. Humean causality? Aristotelian causality? We are left with nothing to support his case with. Regardless, caused fluctuations require a deterministic interpretation. Pro has the burden of proof, and he has given us no reason to drop one for the other.

"Also you are quoting stephen hawking's book the Grand Design which was probably more for money and fame that stephen hawking wrote that book."

I did not quote anything from Stephen Hawking's book.

"If something can come from nothing or something come without a cause than why not you show us?"

Because the burden of proof is not on me. The burden of proof is on Pro to show that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Pro has not proved this.

"My argument on abiogenesis was also used to prove that point. Life cannot come from non life and something can't come from nothing, those are observable and logical facts."

They are not facts, and there is no logic, or observation to support either of those two contentions. This is just appealing to ignorance.

"The burden of proof is on you to prove that something can come from nothing, until you can do that we only have one logical explanation to the origin of the universe and that is some intelligent designer."

Nope. The burden of proof is on Pro to show that something cannot come from nothing, or that something cannot come into being without a cause. Pro has not proven his case. We have no reason to accept the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

"Make something come from nothing if you are truthful"

Does Pro believe God made the universe out of nothing? If so, then Pro believes that something can come from nothing! This is why the Kalam is self-refuting.

"Quantum physics won't do because it hasn't been fully understood and as Richard Feynman said you don't know it."

Even if we don't fully understand it, that doesn't mean that we don't understand it.

"I am arguing with you in terms of common sense not hypothetical quantum weirdness"

Science shatters our notion of common sense. This makes Pro's arguments weak.

"Something can't come from nothing, and it never happens and it has never been proven empirically that objects come from nothing (why don't stars of planets come from nothing why only virtual particles? How do you know they don't come from something invisible either?)"

Pro has not proven that something cannot come from nothing, or that something cannot come into being without a cause. He is committing the shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

"Also if t=0 at the Beginning of the Big bang how did t= 1, 2, or 3 after the big bang."

The above makes no sense, and it is not worded coherently. I already explained my argument perfectly clear.

"Logically speaking how can something come without a cause."

Why can't it? The burden of proof is on Pro to prove the first premise. My argument with regards to their being no first decimal after 0, and there being no t=0 does not involve something coming from nothing without a cause. This is a straw-man.

"Time is a dimension and string theory suggests there are other dimensions how do you know there isn't an entity existing on a dimension beyond time who created the universe?"

My opponent admits that time is a dimension. Thus, he adheres to the Minkowski space-time interpretation. This means, he concedes the A-Theory of time. Since he concedes that B-Theory is true, by admitting time is a dimension, then he concedes that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. The resolution has been negated off of this alone.

"The universe can't be infinite because then we won't be here, it must have a creator, if not make something come from nothing"

Why couldn't we be here if the universe was infinite? Pro just makes claims without support, it is embarrassing.

Conclusion

Pro did not object to my argument that there could not be a singularity at t=0, and since there is no first decimal after 0; a first state of the universe is impossible. He also did not support A-theory, and inadvertently conceded B-Theory! Thus, without even knowing it, Pro admits that the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. The resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://www.infidels.org...
tahir123

Pro

Con how is the burden of proof on me to prove something can't come from nothing? That is like proving there is no life on other planets. Common sense experience shows that if you have nothing you will get nothing. Science requires observation and empirical evidence we can all see. How is your quantum fluctuations theory science? The particles in quantum fluctuation could very well be coming from something as you admit, and that is more logically sound than. The basis for my argument is Logic, and logic proves that something can't come from nothing. What you call science is not science it is only theory. There is no proof anything can come from nothing. There is no proof that absolute nothingness exists in the first place also. Also I don't believe God created the universe out of nothing. I believe God is infinite intelligent energy and out of energy God created all matter. There is a lot of fine tuning in the universe and life so there has to be an intelligent designer. The universe couldn't be infinitely old because if there was an infinite past there would be no now, it is like if I had to kill a duck but I had to ask the person behind me if I can kill it and he had to ask the person behind him, and on and on, if that was infinite I would never get the chance to kill the duck

What you are saying is only theory that Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krauss made up there is no proof absolute nothingness exists or that something can come from nothing. It is logically impossible and no one has demonstrated it to be true. Out of nothing only nothing comes it is as simple as that
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"Con how is the burden of proof on me to prove something can't come from nothing?"

Because it is a claim you made, and you have the burden of proof in this debate as per the rules. If you make a claim, you need evidence in this context.

"That is like proving there is no life on other planets."

There probably is life on other planets.

"Common sense experience shows that if you have nothing you will get nothing."

No it doesn't. We have never examined "nothing" to do know whether not something can spring up from nothing or not.

"Science requires observation and empirical evidence we can all see. How is your quantum fluctuations theory science?"

It's science because quantum fluctuations have been verified by experiment.

"The particles in quantum fluctuation could very well be coming from something as you admit, and that is more logically sound than."

How is it more logically sound? Pro just makes claims without evidence. It is embarrassing for him.

"The basis for my argument is Logic, and logic proves that something can't come from nothing."

False. There is nothing illogical about something coming from nothing.

"What you call science is not science it is only theory."

Theories are science. This debate was a waste of time.

"There is no proof anything can come from nothing."

There is no proof that something cannot come from nothing either. I guess we are even.

"There is no proof that absolute nothingness exists in the first place also."

I agree. I don't even believe the universe came from nothing anyway. My main beef is with the second premise.

"Also I don't believe God created the universe out of nothing. I believe God is infinite intelligent energy and out of energy God created all matter."

So you believe in creatio ex deo.

"There is a lot of fine tuning in the universe and life so there has to be an intelligent designer."

Pro has not proven that there is any fine-tuning.

"The universe couldn't be infinitely old because if there was an infinite past there would be no now"

Why wouldn't there be a "now"? Pro is just making baseless assertions.

"it is like if I had to kill a duck but I had to ask the person behind me if I can kill it and he had to ask the person behind him, and on and on, if that was infinite I would never get the chance to kill the duck"

This analogy assumes a starting point. If there was an infinite past, there would be no starting point. Thus, the above is a false-analogy.

"What you are saying is only theory that Steven Hawking and Lawrence Krauss made up there is no proof absolute nothingness exists or that something can come from nothing. "

No it is not, I never mentioned Hawking or Krauss once. Pro is creating a straw-man.

"It is logically impossible and no one has demonstrated it to be true. Out of nothing only nothing comes it is as simple as that"

Pro has not shown that it is logically impossible, he just says it is with no reason!

Conclusion

This debate was a waste of time. Pro had the burden of proof and failed miserably. He did not even show A-Theory was true, and I showed the argument depended on A-Theory!

Since Pro could not show that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and he could not show the universe began to exist; the resolution has not been affirmed.

PS. Just a reminder to Pro that his next round must only consist of "No argument will be posted here as agreed", as per the rules.
tahir123

Pro

No argument will be posted here as agreed
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
[1 out of 5]

Rational_Thinker911 (Con) vs. tahir123 (Pro)
A Debate Review
Started: 7/15/2013
Concluded: 7/16/13
Category: Philosophy
Debate No: 35609

In all honesty, I wasn"t expecting much out of this debate. Rational Thinker has had almost one hundred and fifty debates, many of which are on the KCA, against some of the best debaters on the site. Tahir123 is a new user of DDO, and this is his (or her) first debate on the website. This debate is not evenly matched. I don"t blame Rational Thinker for this, because he left the debate open, but it should be noted because I"m evaluating Tahir in respect to this. I think it"s great that Tahir was able to finish every single round of this debate, and didn"t give up, even though he may have dropped several points.

Pro makes some key points in R1 to establish the KCA. Everything has a beginning has to have a cause, and since the universe had a beginning, it must also have a cause. The universe could not have come from nothing because that"s impossible, as we"ve never observed such a thing happening. The cause has to be personal because it created a universe with fine-tuning. The multi-verse theory fails to explain fine tuning because it has no evidence and violates Occam"s razor. Pro also says
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
[2 out of 5]

Con begins R2 with a demolition of Pro. The first point was that something can come from something without cause, which shows the first premise to be false. Con defines causation as necessary and sufficient, and if something comes into being without the latter, it did not have a cause. Two quotes are provided from physicists which show that, in quantum mechanics, things happen with no sufficient conditions.

Con uses Big Bang cosmology and mathematics to prove that, if Friedmann cosmological models are correct, there is no starting point to the universe. He argues this by stating that a singularity would be mathematically impermissible according to the rules against division by zero. Since there is no first decimal after zero, every state of time has a prior state of time, and there is no first state of time. This is inspired by Quentin Smith"s famous ""An Argument for A Self-Caused Universe"". even though it doesn"t go the extra step. Con is assuming A-theory and temporal becoming, however. He doesn"t think that temporal becoming is real. So, he gives an argument from B theory that we"ll turn to.

Con quotes William Lane Craig as saying something to the effect of ""If B-theory is true, then the Kalam fails an argument"". Con says that B-theory is true because the most common interpretation of relativity is the Minkowski one, which says that there is no ""now"" moment. He gives examples of experimental vindications of this interpretation. Let"s see how Pro responds to these arguments.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
[3 out of 5]

In response to quantum mechanics, Pro responds in a few ways. The first point is that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don"t understand quantum mechanics. The implication seems to be that Con can"t make any claims about quantum mechanics because nobody has a full understanding of it. The second point is that quantum fluctuations may come from something. The third point is that Con quoted from a Stephen Hawking book (he actually didn"t), and since that book was published just for the money, it should be ignored.

Pro asks Con how T=1 and the other states came from T=0. He also asserts that time cannot be infinite. Other than this, nothing else is said.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
[4 out of 5]

You"ll notice that Pro completely ignored Con"s argument from the theory of relativity. This argument showed that the B-theory of time is true, so A-theory is false, making the KCA false by implication. Nothing was said about the Minkowski interpretation. Nothing was said about its experimental vindications. Nothing at all. (Later on, Con cleverly shows that Pro actually assumes the B-theory for one of his arguments.)

Con points out the fallacy of saying ""we don"t have a full understanding, therefore there cannot be any understanding at all"". He also asks what form of causality Pro endorses, as he is vague on the issue. This is short, but it"s necessary to be terse when Pro doesn"t make any major refutations.

Everything Pro said in the next round is just an attempt at shifting the burden of proof. It"s not Con"s job to prove that something can come from nothing, with or without cause, although he was kind enough to provide an example of the latter. Rather, it"s Pro"s job to prove that such a thing is impossible. Pro also talks about Stephen Hawking (what is it with mentioning Hawking when Con never did) and Lawrence Krauss, two people who don"t matter to the debate.
Posted by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
[5 of 5]

Due to the dropped arguments and shifting the burden of proof, I think Con clearly won the debate. A Con vote would be justified on Pro dropping B-theory alone. Con also provided thirteen sources and did a good job of showing their relevance to the debate, while Pro did not provide a single source. Arguments and sources to Con. Conduct to Pro as a reward for not forfeiting.

I think Pro did a good job relatively. It"s difficult to face a debater like Rational Thinker for your very first debate. Winning this thing was a long shot, and I congratulate Pro for sticking around and finishing the debate.

RT receives a 9/10 on his debate performance.
Pro receives a 7/10 on his debate performance.

Conduct: Pro
Spelling and Grammar: Tied
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
I think your conception of God as a space alien is hindering your understanding.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
But to reply: the origins of the universe are not religious matters.

Why Not.............

(Also not a religious concern is speculation as to what might happen when we die.)

Again Why not..............

Even if a creature with immense powers exists, and even if this alien created the universe, this would not represent a religion, or a religious event, or any religious matter whatsoever. Any such creature would also not qualify as a "god."

Why not......

Therefore, we need to establish that extradimensional space aliens with the abilities to create universes exist. We need to describe how these creatures are born, what their ecosystem is like, how their universe creating powers manifest themselves, how their life cycles proceed, etc., in order for the concept that forms the foundation of the KCA to even be relevant to the topic of astrophysics.

I don't think so.

To suggest that one of these universe creating extra-dimensional space aliens in particular created this universe, we also need to explain why we should necessarily exclude all other hypothetical extra-dimensional space aliens who have been said to have created this universe.

Yes, this is open for discussion, there are many perspectives we could analyse.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
But to reply: the origins of the universe are not religious matters.

Why Not.............

(Also not a religious concern is speculation as to what might happen when we die.)

Again Why not..............

Even if a creature with immense powers exists, and even if this alien created the universe, this would not represent a religion, or a religious event, or any religious matter whatsoever. Any such creature would also not qualify as a "god."

Why not......

Therefore, we need to establish that extradimensional space aliens with the abilities to create universes exist. We need to describe how these creatures are born, what their ecosystem is like, how their universe creating powers manifest themselves, how their life cycles proceed, etc., in order for the concept that forms the foundation of the KCA to even be relevant to the topic of astrophysics.

I don't think so.

To suggest that one of these universe creating extra-dimensional space aliens in particular created this universe, we also need to explain why we should necessarily exclude all other hypothetical extra-dimensional space aliens who have been said to have created this universe.

Yes, this is open for discussion, there are many perspectives we could analyse.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
I don't follow your logic I am afraid.
Posted by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
"If you are indeed advocating that a complex universe can arise without a cause or need of a creator, then by the very same logic, it's possible that God with an infinitude of complexity can also arise without a cause or need to be created... Indeed this is the reasoning employed in a sense by some theism, that God is an uncaused being..."

I can describe my position, which I have not found relevant to this debate. My own position on the matter did not factor into my scoring.

But to reply: the origins of the universe are not religious matters. (Also not a religious concern is speculation as to what might happen when we die.) Even if a creature with immense powers exists, and even if this alien created the universe, this would not represent a religion, or a religious event, or any religious matter whatsoever. Any such creature would also not qualify as a "god."

Therefore, we need to establish that extradimensional space aliens with the abilities to create universes exist. We need to describe how these creatures are born, what their ecosystem is like, how their universe creating powers manifest themselves, how their life cycles proceed, etc., in order for the concept that forms the foundation of the KCA to even be relevant to the topic of astrophysics.

To suggest that one of these universe creating extra-dimensional space aliens in particular created this universe, we also need to explain why we should necessarily exclude all other hypothetical extra-dimensional space aliens who have been said to have created this universe.

It's exhausting even beginning to discuss the subject.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Rational_Thinker9119tahir123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by TheFurryOat 3 years ago
TheFurryOat
Rational_Thinker9119tahir123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems 3/5 of the total debates CON has been in have been similar, if not identical, to this debate. At some point it becomes redundant and unnecessary when nothing new is presented. However, CON met the standards put forward in the debate, though whether this is due to research or a copy and paste method, I am unsure.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
Rational_Thinker9119tahir123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: My scoring is high, but I feel that it is justified. S&G must be awarded, thanks to the clear and understandable language used to explain the sometimes complex math involved in this debate. Sourcing, for obvious reasons. Arguments must almost always go to the side that does not support the KCA, providing competence. It is normally enough to do much less than what was done here. The KCA requires that a god or goddess must have been a "first cause," and that this god or goddess was somehow exempted from needing any such cause. This is an unsustainable argument, obviously. In this debate, the KCA was met with an actual attempt to demonstrate that uncaused events can occur. More than enough; arguments to CON.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
Rational_Thinker9119tahir123Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con as he was the only one that used any. Arguments to Con, as Pro never provided any support for the main premises of the KCA but rather relied on logical fallacies such as ad Ignorantium and Strawman. Pro failed to meet his Burden.