The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,248 times Debate No: 35921
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con





Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4. If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful.

5. Therefore, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful.


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. 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.
Anti-atheist

Pro

The Kalam Cosmological arument is a very good argument yes.


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

4. If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful.

5. Therefore, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful.



(1) This is self-evident a priori. Everything we see has a cause. Diaherra, football, pain, hitler, but we don't see stuff like food, root beer, robots, chickens, hitler come out of no where with no cause. Everyone hopes 1 is true. Otherwise we could start eating a sandwitch and posion can just appear. Atheists hope the premise isn't true, but they all want it to be true unknowingly. Its a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

(2) Theres good reasons for to believe this. Like this sub argument

2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

If I told you that you can get a candy bar if you snap your fingers an infinite amount of time would you ever get the candy? Nope! Same with before the univers.

The available scientific evidence strongly suggests the universe has a finite past.

*The 2003 paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin suggests a universe with a finite
past. *

An actual infinity can't exist, for it would lead to absurdities such as Hilbert's Hotel


(3) Follows from above

(4) There was no nature and there were no natural forces ontologically prior to the Big Bang nature itself was created at the Big Bang. That means the cause of the universe must be something beyond nature"something we would call supernatural. It also means that the supernatural cause of the universe must at least be:
*spaceless because it created space
*timeless because it created time
*immaterial because it created matter
*powerful because it created out of nothing
*intelligent because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed
*personal because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect?

(5) God exists. Follows

Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con





Premise 1: Whatever Begins To Exist Has A Cause

I agree with this premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is based on the metaphysical principle ex nihilo nihil fit, which states that out of nothing, nothing comes (something cannot come from nothing). This is a self-evident a priori truth, and it would be metaphysically absurd to deny such a premise. The problem is, the idea that something must come from something only means that everything must have a necessary cause, not a sufficient cause. Ex nihilo nihil fit says nothing on a sufficient cause being required with regards to everything that begins to exist. Why is this a problem? It is a problem because if God exists, then his undertaking of creating the universe would be sufficient to bring it into existence:

"I am inclined simply to deny that God's eternally willing to create the universe, properly understood, is sufficient for the existence of the universe...Thus, it is insufficient to account for the origin of the universe by citing simply God, His timeless intention to create a world with a beginning, and His power to produce such a result. There must be an exercise of His causal power in order for the universe to be created." - William Lane Craig[1]

This means, that showing that everything that begins to exist has a cause is not enough to demonstrate God (God would be the sufficient cause of the universe). It must be true that everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause; which Pro has not shown. In quantum mechanics, things begin to exist (assuming the A-Theory of time is true) all the time without a sufficient cause. 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)[2]. Of course, these quantum events are not completely uncaused as they involve a necessary cause (the quantum vacuum), but they lack sufficient conditions. Without the need for a sufficient cause of the universe; God cannot be established using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. God's act of creation would be sufficient to bring the universe into existence.

This premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is true, but trivial. It speaks nothing on the type of cause required for God to be the cause of the universe. It only speaks on necessary causation. Something coming from something does not get one a sufficient cause.

Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist

My opponent states that we would never get to the present if the past was infinite. Now, the arguments for why a successive addition of past events with no starting point cannot exist fail. To say that we would never reach "now", one has to assume a starting point. However, if the past is boundless, then there would be no starting point they could claim they could jump from to reach "now". As philosopher Wes Morriston notes:

"The only sense in which [One cannot 'reach actual infinity' by 'successively adding one member after another']
is clearly true is this: one cannot, beginning with any one member of an infinite set, complete the task of successively adding in all the others. But what follows from this is only that an infinite series could not have been 'formed' by a 'successive addition' that started with a first member. Why could it not have been formed by a 'successive addition' that did not start with a first member?" - Wes Morriston. Professor of Philosophy University of Colorado, Boulder[3]

Pro has not shown how an actual infinity is impossible, or the type of infinity entailed by a boundless past. As far as Hilbert's Hotel is concerned, this just shows that you cannot always run regular mathematical operations on infinity without leading to contradiction. This does not show that infinity cannot exist; that is a non-sequitur.

Additionally, Pro sites the BVG theorem to show that the universe must have a finite past. However, the BVG theorem can be easily evaded. For example, Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton evaded the theorem in a paper called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal"[4]. Also, even if we accept this theorem, Alexander Vilenkin proposed a way to explain the beginning in accordance to the laws of physics. Alexander's model of comic origins[5] 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's plausible that the universe emerged in a symmetric vacuum state without a sufficient 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.

So, even if we accept the BVG theorem (which is not necessary), and accept that the universe came into being, it can be explained by the laws of physics. This means, that no God is needed even if this premise is true. Pro still has not even shown that this premise is true. Therefore, he fails.

I would even argue, that science shows the universe did not begin to exist. If B-Theory is true, then the Kalam Cosmological Argument is finished. As William Lane Craig notes:

"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[6]

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:

“[T]he theory of relativity conceives of events as simply being and sustained relations of earlier and later, but not as 'coming into being' - Adolph Grunbaum

We have good scientific grounds for the claim that B-Theory is true, and thus, the claim that the universe did not begin to exist. This 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[7]. This is due to its success with making testable predictions that have been verified (time dilation and length contraction[8]), 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.

We actually have good philosophical and scientific grounds to support the claim that the universe did not begin to exist

Conclusion

Ex nihilo nihil fit at best shows that everything that begins to exist has a necessary cause. That does not get one a sufficient cause, and thus, it does not get one a creation event. Quantum mechanics shows that sufficient causation is not required. Arguments against an actual infinity fail, the BVG theorem can be evaded, and B-Theory entails that the universe did not begin to exist.

Sources

[1] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[2] http://www.infidels.org...
[3] http://spot.colorado.edu...
[4] http://arxiv.org...
[5] http://mukto-mona.net...
[6] The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184
[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
Anti-atheist

Pro

Premise 1: Whatever Begins To Exist Has A Cause

Premise one supports suficiant causation. Since Klara Hitler brought about Adolf Hitler. Not neccacry causation. Like if I had diherria from mexican food that mexican food is a sufficant cause of me sh1tting my pants. Premise one proves both.

About the quantum mechanics. Theres debate if subatomic particles even exist. But quantum mechanics is complex and has many interpretaions, so our interpreation may be false. Sub atoms being uncaused really only work with interprations like the copehhagen

Premise 2:

Something cant start without a first member because it would have a regress.


B theory

You know what the b in b- theory stands for? Bullsh1t. No really.

THe problem with b theory is it sucks. Bullsh1it theory says time is tenseless and time exists like space. The past, present, and future all exist equally. This means we can go back in time but if we go back in time then we can kill our dads before we were born. The b theory entails contradictions. If relativity supports a b theory than it must be that our interpration of it is wrong this doesn't mean neo lorenz is true but we may have some other or are missing something.

Relativity mainly proves the growing block theory not the B theory. It says light travels finitely this means an event must have already passed for us to see it. Con has to prove that relativity ties in with the future.

KCA is a win.


Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Premise 1: Whatever Begins To Exist Has A Cause

Premise 1 does not support sufficient causation, as it just states that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not a sufficient cause. Also, if something comes from something, that self-evidently means that if there is something that comes into being, then this coming into being must have been dependant on something which preceded it. However, once more, this speaks nothing on sufficient causation unless that addition is specifically included in the equation.

Now, my opponent questions the existence of virtual particles. However, they have been experimentally verified between two Casimir plates[1]. To deny the reality of virtual particles, one has to deny scientific experiment. He also claims that the conclusion of virtual particles beginning to exist without a sufficient cause depends on indeterministic interpretations (like the Copenhagen interpretation), which is true. What reasons to do we have to accept indeterministic interpretations over deterministic ones? Well, deterministic interpretations require non-local hidden variables. However, quantum mechanics works without the assumption of non-local hidden variables causing virtual particles. This means, that deterministic interpretations violate Occam's Razor. Deterministic interpretations are simply contrived ad hoc to get around the problem of quantum randomness. Not only that, but deterministic interpretations entail realism. However, local non-realism is confirmed by violation of Bell's inequalities[2], and non-local non-realism is demonstrated by violations of Leggett's inequalities, and the before-before experiment[3].

So, while the first premise is true, it is trivially true. This because we have no reason to think that sufficient causation is required for something to begin to exist (quantum mechanics shows that it is not). Without sufficient causation as a requirement, we have no creation event as a requirement. Ex nihilo nihil fit only makes a necessary cause required pertaining to something beginning to exist.

Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist

Pro claims that no beginning means an infinite past. However, that is not an argument against an infinite past. I already showed in my last round why his argument against an infinite past failed. Since pro did not respond to it, we can consider his argument here a dud.

My opponent objects to B-Theory on the basis that it makes time travel in the past in possible, which is impossible. However, information travelling to the past is not only possible, but confirmed by experiment[4]. A wave-function will collapse before anyone makes an observation. Pro mentions the grandfather paradox, but these paradoxes are in no way necessary when dealing with backwards time travel:

"There's a famous story, I think originating with Richard Feynman, about the time traveler who goes back in time and, in an adaptation of the grandmother-killing scenario, decides to shoot his younger self to see what would happen. He takes a rifle with him, seeks out his younger self and raises the rifle to shoot through the heart. But his aim isn't very good, it's a little bit wobbly, so he hits his younger self in the shoulder instead, merely wounding him. The reason his aim isn't so good is because he's got this shoulder wound from an earlier shooting incident! So you see, it's possible to conceive of temporal loops of that sort without encountering a paradox." - Paul Davies[5]

Also, the Minkowski space-time interpretation of Relativity does not just entail that the past is real (Growing Block Theory), but that the future is real as well:

“Once we know that your ‘now’ can be what I consider the past, or your ‘now’ can be what I consider the future, and your ‘now’ is as every bit as valid as my ‘now’, then we learn that the past must be real, the future must be real… The past, present, and future are all equally real; they all exist.” – Brian Greene[6]

Thus, Relativity supports B-Theory; not Growing Block Theory.

Conclusion

All of Pro's arguments fail. The resolution has been negated.

Sources

[1] http://math.ucr.edu...
[2] http://phys.org...
[3] http://www.quantumphil.org...
[4] http://www.popsci.com...
[5] http://www.edge.org...
[6] Video Source

Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent forfeited. In the last round, he must simply put:

"No argument will be posted here as agreed."

Thank you for the debate.
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
"Like if I had diherria from mexican food that mexican food is a sufficant cause of me sh1tting my pants."

Best defense ever 10/10.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Your last round just proved you were, and I thought you were going to take this seriously too...
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
im not a troll
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Ya he's totally trolling you. I wouldn't give him the time of day, but do as you see fit."

Meh, I think it will be fun to obliterate him ha
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Miles, can you send me a friend request please.
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
Ya he's totally trolling you. I wouldn't give him the time of day, but do as you see fit.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
Nice argument anit-atheist, much better than I expected.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Sh*t, the troll accepted. At least the troll presented a serious argument for the Kalam. I guess I'll take this debate seriously.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Hahahaha Nice one Miles.
Posted by Miles_Donahue 3 years ago
Miles_Donahue
Uh, Rational_Thinker, I do believe you've plagiarized 5 times by not citing where the premises of the KCA were originally formulated. You've brought shame to your family.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Subutai 3 years ago
Subutai
Rational_Thinker9119Anti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and the fact that Anti's arguments never proved the KCA. Con has this one in the bag.