The Instigator
SuburbiaSurvivor
Pro (for)
Tied
35 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
35 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Logically Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 17 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,297 times Debate No: 21884
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (67)
Votes (17)

 

SuburbiaSurvivor

Pro

This round is for acceptance and definitions only.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument [1]

P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C: Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.

[1] (a) http://www.leaderu.com...
(b) http://en.wikipedia.org...

By accepting this debate Con accepts this version of KCA.

Rules: Both debators must hold their breath for 10 seconds before each round or that debator will automatically forfeit.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept, present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
SuburbiaSurvivor

Pro

I thank Con for accepting this debate and look forward to a challenging exchange.

I do apologize for the delay in getting in my first argument. While I would love to say it was because I have a life, or that I was doing something important. The fact of the matter is that I was playing Minecraft.

Please enjoy the music to occompany you as you read this debate. It's by one of my favorite bands, thus I know you'll like it!

Burden Of Proof

Obviously, as Pro I have assumed the BOP in this debate. Thus Con must either refute my arguments supporting the resolution, or show how my arguments are irrelevant to whether the resolution is correct or not.

Regarding the conclusion: It is not necessary that the conclusion be a god. While once you ascertain that the universe has a cause, I consider it very easy to show that that cause is God, proving that the cause is God or even proving what that cause is is irrelevant to this debate.

Introduction

A long time ago there was a guy who wanted the prove the existence of God and blah blah blah. Now we're here debating the Kalam Cosmological Argument which is as follows:
  • P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
  • P2: The universe began to exist.
  • C: Therefore the universe has a cause for its existence.

The Simple and Logically Cohesive Nature Of The KCA

Logically, there is nothing incohesive about the Kalam Cosmological Argument as it follows modus ponenus inference. Essentially this means that the argument contains merely two premises and one conclusion. Such logical arguments can be simplified as follows:
  • P1: If p is true, then q is true.
  • P2: p is true.
  • C: Therefore q is true.

If the first two premises are true, then it logically follows that the conclusion is true. If one of the premises is not true, then the conclusion is not true. Thus, assuming that the two premises are true, there is nothing explicitly unsound about this argument. As it logically follows that if Premise 1 and 2 are true that the Conclusion is true.

Defending P1: Everything That Begins To Exist Has A Cause

We know that this premise is true both through inductive reasoning and by intuition. Everything that we experience that has a beginning of it's existence has a cause for it's existence. For example, all of the inventions that have aided mankind over the years have been the product of an inventor who invented those inventions. The act of inventing those inventions was the cause for those inventions' existence. Therefore those inventions had a cause for their existence. This same rule applies to all things that we see exist. If it were not a basic rule, then we would be seeing human beings, planets, clocks, and all sorts of strange things popping into existence uncaused.

In fact, the inverse of this premise, which would be "Nothing that begins to exist has a cause" is so incredibly false that it just now made me fall out of my chair. If this premise were true, then once again, why aren't things popping into existence uncaused? Or, one could imagine another inverse of this premise which would be: "Nothing that exists began to exist", which is even worse! If this were true, then neither I nor Con ever began to exist! In fact, we have always existed! If this is true, then why can't I remember the dinosaurs? Can Con remember the dinosaurs? If so, what were the like? It would probably benefit the paleontology community if he would tell them.

Defending Premise 2: The Universe Began To Exist:

The Philosophical Argument

If the universe (and/or singularity before the big bang) never began to exist, then essentially the very existence of the universe is a paradox. If the universe/singularity has always existed then essentially time has always existed. If this is true, then there has been an infinite amount of time for all events to take place. This is a problem because it begs the question: If there has been an infinite amount of time for right now to take place, why is it that right now is happening right now? Assuming (for the sake of argument) that it took the singularity that existed before the Big Bang a hundred years to undergo the natural processes that caused it to begin expanding, then why is it that the Big Bang took place at a fixed point in time? If the Big Bang happened a hundred years ago, then I must assume that the singularity began the processes that started the Big Bang two hundred years ago. However, two hundred years ago, the singularity had already had a hundred years to begin expanding. Thus I must assume that the Big Bang happened two hundred years ago, and the processes began three hundred years ago. But wait! Three hundred years ago, the singularity had already had a hundred years to begin the processes that would've caused it to begin expanding! This goes on and on to an infinite regress to the point where the Universe would've never begun to exist at all.

This is very similar to the paradox of Hilbert's Hotel [1], which postulates that an actual infinite can not exist. The paradox essentially goes as follows: There is a hotel that has an infinite amount of rooms. All of the rooms are occupied. Along comes Tim and Tim wants to stay in the hotel. To accommodate Tim, the receptionist moves the guy in Room 1 to Room 2, and the guy in Room 2 to Room 3, and so on. This makes room for Tim. However, this is the paradox! If all of the rooms are full, then there is no room for Tim! However, because the rooms are infinite, there is room for Tim!

Thus, coming from a purely philosophical standpoint, we know that the universe must have a beginning.

The Scientific Argument

Furthermore, science has confirmed these claims in various ways:
  • Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy [2]
  • the cosmic microwave background radiation [3]
  • red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us [4]
  • helium/hydrogen abundance predictions [5]
  • star formation and stellar lifecycle theories [6]
  • the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars [7]
Essentially, these confirmations support the Big Bang Theory which claims that the Universe does, in fact, have a beginning. The red-shifting light, cosmic microwave background radiation, etc. all give evidence to support that theory the universe is expanding, thus all philosophical and scientific evidence proves that the universe has not always existed in a static state.

Conclusion

Since P1 is true and P2 is supported by both philosophy and science, then the Conclusion logically follows. Thus I think it's safe to say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a logically sound argument that proves the universe has a cause.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[7] http://www.nobelprize.org......
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for presenting his arguments, I'm actually very excited about this debate because it's not invoking a God. There can now be no omnipotent arguments or any other illogical attribute applied to God to make the KCA work beacuse the theist would theoretically have to prove a cause then God, not vice versa.

Therefore, it would be illogical to apply any of God's attributes to justify any part of the premises.


Premise 1


My opponent argues that we know this premise is true due to reasoning and intuition. An inventor invents a telephone for example, therefore there is a clear principal of cause and effect at the macro-level within the universe involving it's parts. The problem is, when an inventor causes something to "begin to exist" (I may dig in to that termonology later) it's all made from pre-existing material, therefore, all of our intuition is based on creatio ex materia. We have absolutely no intuition regarding things comming into existence ex nihilo [1] because it's impossible (out of nothing, nothing comes). Therefore, the distinction must be made between causes ex materia and causes ex nihilo, because if the word "cause" is going to be used to describe both in this sense, then I'm affraid the Kalam Cosmological Argument is committing the equivocation fallacy.[2]

Due to the fact that out of nothing, nothing comes...All causes must logically involve some sort of pre-existing physical state.

There is a point I'm going to make that will be addressed further later, however I believe it needs to be said now.

All of our intuition of cause and effect is based off of the parts within the universe, so to use our intuition regarding parts of the universe to provide case for a cause for the universe as a whole is likely committing the fallacy of composition.[3]


P1: All examples of causes involve parts within the universe.

P2: Our sense of cause and effect, is 100% based on parts within the universe.

P3: The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some, or every part of the whole.

P4: Claiming the universe must have had a cause is committing the fallacy of composition.

P5: If claiming that the universe must have had a cause may be fallacious, then it’s not logical to do so.


Uncaused Effects

1) Radioactive atom decay

"Radioactive decay is the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles (ionizing radiation). The emission is spontaneous, in that the atom decays without any physical interaction with another particle from outside the atom" [4]


2) Scale-free density perturbations

Spontaneous creation of almost scale-free density perturbations in an inflationary universe occur. [5]

spon·ta·ne·ous
Adjective:
  1. Performed or occurring without premeditation or external stimulus:
[6]

Human's being spontaneous is one thing, however "things" being spontaneous indicate no external cause. Also there is a misconception about uncaused events that needs to be cleared up:

People will say that the back-drop is the cause of uncaused events, for example, the Quantum Vacuum is the cause of Quantum Fluctuations even though they "seem" uncaused. Let me paint an analogy for why this type of argument is flawed:

If there is a pond and you see a ripple, the pond itself isn't the cause of the ripple just because the ripple couldn't happen without the pond. There must have been a fish jump up, a rock being skipped, rain drops hitting it or something external causing the ripple, the pond itself can't cause the ripple. Now lets say you ran a controlled experiment, took out any possible external causes, and ripples were occuring on the pond all over erradically and spontaneously...This is basically what uncaused events are like that occur on small scales, they are not from nothing, but they still have no external cause.

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom 
decays at a random time. Even the quantum vacuum is not an inert void, but is boiling with
quantum fluctuations. In our macroscopic world, we are used to energy conservation, but in the
quantum realm this holds only on average"

- Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville


Premise 2

Rebutting My Opponent's Philosophical Argument:

The gist of this argument is that if the singularity has always existed then essentially time has always existed and an infinite regress is illogical so the universe had a beggining. The problem for my opponent, is that the same concept could be applied to the hypothetical external cause being asserted. If this "cause" has always existed then essentially time must have always existed or else there would have been no time to cause anything. The point is, unless my opponent plans on committing the special pleading fallacy then it's safe to say we can throw away this philosophical argument. The reason I say this, is because it does just as much damage to his "cause" existing without time as it does the singularity.

The Scientific Argument

"Essentially, these confirmations support the Big Bang Theory which claims that the Universe does, in fact, have a beginning"

My opponent doesn't seem to grasp the concept of what The Big Bang theory says, even The Bare Naked Ladies got it right:

"Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait..."

Of course I'm not using the Bare Naked Ladies as a source (lol), it's just obvious that people who advocate this Kalam Cosmolgical Argument plainly don't understand what the theory actually states.

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly." [7]

The Big Bang describes the expansion and devlopement of our known universe from a single point called the singularity that existed 13.7 billion years ago, however it does not however say the singularity began to exist ex nihilo. Once more, since you cannot get something from absolutely nothing then the universe existing ex nihilo is impossible.

Re-Cap

1. Non of God's attributes can logically be aplied within the context of this debate to support any of the premises.

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument's defenders are committing the equivocation fallacy by using the "cause" to describe both ex materia and hypothetical/ illogical ex nihilo causes by using a "glossing over" technique.

3. Claiming that because something is true for every part of something (everything in the universe needs causes), then it must be true for the whole (the universe as a whole needs a cause) may be committing the fallacy of composition.

4. Not everything needs an external cause.

5. My opponent's philosophical argument hurts his "cause" as much as my "singularity" if the same concept is applied to it (of course I will be expecting some form of special pleading in the next round, but hopefully Pro is more clever than that).

6. The Big Bang model describes the expansion of the univere from a singularirty, it does not claim the singularity began to exist creatio ex nihilo.

Conclusion

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is extremely fallacious any way you look at it, therefore, it cannot be logically sound at the same time.

Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://onegoodmove.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
[5] http://prd.aps.org...
[6] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
SuburbiaSurvivor

Pro

A hearty thanks to my opponent for an intriguing debate and some interesting objections.

I must, however, object to Con's introductory paragraph. He seems to be under the assumption that since I am not tasked to prove that God exists, that God is somehow irrelevant to the topic at hand and/or God can not be appealed to. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is used to prove the existence of a God, but all the argument truly proves is that the Universe has a cause. Thus the argument isn't contingent on God's existence, but God is certainly relevant to the topic.

Con's Objections

Before we start, let's take a summarized look at Con's objections so we can answer each one of them and hopefully resolve his issues with the KCA:
  1. P1 commits the fallacy of equivocation in regards to ex nihilo and ex materia.
  2. P1 commits the fallacy of composition.
  3. P1 is disproved by uncaused Quantum events.
  4. The problem of infinite regress applies to all causes and is thus irrelevant.
  5. The Big Bang Theory does not prove the universe came into existence ex nihilo
  6. Special Pleading in there somewhere too
Well then, five problems with the KCA! This must be a pretty bad argument if Con is correct. Let us examine his allegations to see if they are correct.

Defending P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Does P1 commit the fallacy of composition?

This contention is perhaps the easiest to address. The fallacy of composition is when you identify a property of the parts of a whole, and thus, assume that the whole has that same property [1]. An example of this would be to claim that because atoms are invisible, and human beings are made of atoms, human beings are also invisible.

Fortunately, the KCA simply does not do that. It is treating everything individually as a part. For example, the argument does not read: "Because all of the parts of the universe have a cause for their beginning, the universe as a whole requires a cause for its beginning". This adds language to the KCA that simply does not exist. Even the philosophical argument used to prove that the Universe must have an external cause (the problem of infinite regress) and the scientific argument (The Big Bang) treats the universe as an individual part, and not a whole. Thus claiming that the KCA commits the fallacy of composition demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both formal logic and the argument at hand.

Does P1 commit the fallacy of equivocation?

Here Con once again demonstrates a misunderstanding of the premise as well as the fallacy of equivocation. The fallacy of equivocation is when a word is used in a misleading manner with two definitions [2]. For example:

"The sign said "fine for parking here", so since it was fine, I parked there"

Now, Con claims that the first premise of the KCA equivocates in regards to creatio ex materia andcreatio ex nihilo. Since P1 of the KCA reads: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence" then Con is essentially claiming that the phrase "begins to exist" is equivocating. To satisfy this objection, let us further define "begins to exist" as: comes into being. To illustrate, let's say p (the object in question) exists at t (for time), if p does not exist for any time prior to t, and exists for any period of time after t, then at time t p began to exist.

That's it. There is no mention of ex nihilo or ex materia. To claim that P1 is guilty of equivocation is a red herring because the premise simply isn't concerned with how or from where the being came into existence!

Unfortunately, the problems with Con's objection don't end here. Con claims that because ex nihilo nihil fit ("from nothing nothing comes") is true, then creatio ex nihilo ("creation from nothing") is untrue. But ex nihilo nihil fit refers to the fact that nothing can come from nothing uncaused. Whereas creatio ex nihilo refers to something coming into existence via a cause. Thus Con is committing the fallacy special pleading by claiming that creatio ex nihilo is somehow impossible! Furthermore, the only evidence supporting Con's claim that creatio ex nihilo is impossible is the fact that we've never seen it happen! But this is an argument from ignorance! It is also true that we haven't observed every thing come into existence ex materia. Thus by the same logic, it is possible that the next hamburger I buy could come into existence uncaused.

As if that wasn't bad enough, ex materia and ex nihilo aren't the only options regarding a being coming into existence. It is also possible that the universe came into existence ex deo ("from God"). So even if we grant Con that creatio ex nihilo is impossible, this does nothing to invalidate the argument, since not only is P1 unconcerned with the means through which something comes into existence, but ex nihilo and ex materia are not the only options.

Does Quantum Mechanics disprove P1?

Here Con attempts to use QM to prove that some things can come into existence ex materia uncaused. He uses examples of radioactive decay and virtual particles coming into existence from Quantum Vacuums.

In regards to radioactive decay, asside from the fact that is more of a case of something coming out of existence, the claim that radioactive decay is spontaneous a baseless assertion. For one, while radioactive decay appears to be uncaused, it still decays at a constant rate. In fact, if radioactive decay rates were not constant radiometric dating methods would be flawed and the entire science community should be notified immediately. Essentially, one can assert that radioactive decay rates are uncaused. But this is merely an argument from ignorance: "it has not been proven that radioactive decay has a cause therefore radioactive decay does not have a cause". There's a difference between something not having a cause, and having an unknown cause. Furthermore, there is recent evidence that radioactive decay rates are influenced by neutrinos from the sun. [3]

In regards to Quantum Physics, Con's assertion that virtual particles coming into being from a quantum vaccuum is also merely an assertion. There are numerous interpretations of Quantum Mechanics [4] and only a few of them are non-deterministic (not requiring a cause), primarily the the Copenhagen interpretation [5]. Thus Con must prove that all deterministic (requiring a cause) interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are false in order for his argument to hold water.

Rebutting Con's Rebuttal To My Philosophical Argument

Unfortunately, Con has failed in entirety to rebut this argument! He has completely failed to satisfy the paradox of infinite regress and has merely dismissed it claiming essentially that "It's as much a problem for you as it is for me!" But the paradox of infinite regress does nothing to undermine the KCA. All it does is narrow down our choices for primal causes to those that satisfy the paradox. For example, let's say the primal cause of the universe was an omnipotent being (or at least extremely powerful) who was both transcendant of natural laws and was conscious (therefore possessing free will). If this is true, then that being would be able to have an infinite amount of opportunities to create the universe, however, since he possessed free will he would not be required to create the universe at any of those opportunities. Thus the paradox of infinite regress is satisfied if the primal cause of the universe is God.

The Big Bang Theory

I never claimed that the Big Bang Theory proved that the universe came into existence ex nihilo. Merely that it began to exist at some point.

Conclusion

Con has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the argument at hand, as well as seeing fallacies in the argument that simply aren't there. Con's objections do not hold water and thus I have upheld my BOP. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a logically sound argument.

Vote 4 meh plz.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[3] http://news.stanford.edu......
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org......
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org......
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

The problem with my opponent's objection to my first paragraph, is no where is God mentioned in one of the premises. There are different versions of the Kalam (which I recently just discovered), some infer a cause and a God, some infer just a cause, this one we are debating about just infers a cause. I'm also very surprised and my opponent's attempts to refute my objections, the arguments came across more like sophisticated dodging. Anyway, in this round, I'm going to defend the contention that all of my refutations still stand and my opponent did not adequately tear them down.

P1: Fallacy of Composition

My opponent is saying that because the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't specifically say "Because all of the parts of the universe have a cause for their beginning, the universe as a whole requires a cause for its beginning", then the Kalam Cosmological Argument has found an escape route as far as this fallacy is concerned. The problem is, I already knew this would be the rebuttal, which is why I included my 5 premised argument in the first round (my opponent completely ignored this, of course).

Re-Hashed 5 Premised Argument


P1: All examples of causes involve parts within the universe.

P2: Our sense of cause and effect, is 100% based on parts within the universe.

P3: Thefallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of thewhole from the fact that it is true of some, or every part of the whole.

P4: Claiming the universe must have had a cause is committing thefallacy of composition.

P5: If claiming that the universe must have had a cause may be fallacious, then it’s not logical to do so.


The point of the above argument, is to illustrate that our sense of cause and effect comes 100% from the parts within the universe. Therefore, if someone is going to say the universe had a cause it must be based on the principle of cause and effect, since the principle of cause and effect is 100% based on the parts of the universe then the exact wording of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is irrelevant.

The Kalam could be revised as:

P1: Every part of the universe that has a beginning, has a cause

P2:
The universe as a whole, began to exist

P3:
The universe has a cause

This is clearly a Fallacy of Composition. One may ask how I'm justified and inferring "every part of the universe" instead of "everything", the answer is simple, we as humans are not omniscient. Therefore, we have no knowledge on "everything" only the parts of the universe.

Until a theist can convince me that the principle of cause and effect isn't 100% based on parts within the universe, then the only logical option is to call out the Kalam Cosmological Argument on this potential fallacy regardless of it's deceiving wording.

P1: The Equivocation Fallacy

As I was reading my opponent's objection and was disappointed that he never refuted this properly, and just seemed to dodge it. Basically, my opponent's objection is that "begins to exist" means the same thing regardless of whether it's creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia. Therefore, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has found an escape route according to my opponent. Unfortunately, this is a weak argument and I will explain why:

Anybody can define something loosely and say that "it all means the same thing", however most people with an ounce of sense should not be so easily fooled. There is a vast, and I mean, vast difference between:

1) Pre-existing things changing form or being rearranged

2) Something popping into existence that came from no pre-existing things

Anybody making the claim that "begin to exist" means the same thing all the way around, immediately is either showing signs of intellectual dishonesty or plain philosophical ignorance.

Also my opponent makes the claim that there is a difference between ex nihilo caused, and uncaused. However, I'm afraid that you can't get anything from absolutely nothing no matter how you look at it. The only way to wiggle out of this would be to claim that God is omniscient, however as I stated, this is assuming a God before the cause is proved. The Kalam is trying to argue for a cause and then a God, therefore you can't use the conclusion that God exists as a defense of one of the premises (this would be a clear case of circular reasoning and begging the question). My objection also takes care of the "ex deo" option my opponent inferred, because once more, God's existence comes after the cause is proved, you can't use God to prove the cause.

P1: Uncaused effects

My opponent claims that it's a baseless assertion that radioactive decay is spontaneous, even though it's a scientific fact. The source I provided even defined it as spontaneous, and every other source regarding radioactive decay I researched did too. My opponent is either ignorant to radioactive decay, or once more, displaying signs of intellectual dishonesty.

Radioactive decay being spontaneous is fact

"The emission is spontaneous, in that the atom decays without any physical interaction with another particle from outside the atom." [1]

"Generally, there are four main concepts that students struggle with when thinking about radioactive decay:

  1. the spontaneity (or randomness) of radioactive decay,
  2. the reason isotopes are important,
  3. the concept of half-life, and
  4. knowing which system is appropriate" [2]


"Radioactive decay is a natural process. An atom of a radioactive isotope will spo­ntaneously decay into another element through one of three common processes..." [3]

So basically, to claim that these decays being spontaneous is a "bare assertion" would be to go against the whole scientific understanding of radioactive decay. The only bare assertion was claiming that if radioactive decay is random, then radiometric dating would be falsified, my opponent gave no reasoning for this. Therefore, he is the only one that seems to be asserting things without basis in this debate.

As far as Quantum Mechanics being uncaused, my opponent claims that it's an argument from ignorance. Basically, just because I don't know how they could be caused doesn't mean that they aren't. However, my opponent seems to fail to realize that if this is true, then he is arguing from ignorance as well. Just because he doesn't know how something could be uncaused, doesn't mean it isn't.

Since we know that principles at the macroscopic level break down at the sub-atomic level (General Relativity for example), then it's plausible for the principle of "cause and effect" to break down at the sub-atomic level as well.

P2: Philosophical Argument

My opponent is basically doing what I said he would have to do (cheat) to make the Kalam Cosmological Argument work, he is inferring an omnipotent God to make this "cause" possible without having to suffer the fate of infinite regress. The problem, is the KLA is supposed to prove the cause then God. My opponent however, is trying to use God to defend one of the premises for a cause. This of course, is begging the question.

My whole point originally was that if this external "cause" being timeless can get wiggle out of the infinite regress, then so can the singularity itself. Since as know (as far as The Big Bng is concerned) that the singularity existed, but do not know if this external cause existed, then in the name of Occam's Razor it's logical to dismiss the unneeded assumption.

P2: The Big Bang


The problem is, did the universe begin ex mateira or ex nihilo? My opponent is simply using the fallacious "glossing over" technique to deny the clear equivocation fallacy.

Conclusion:

1) The Kalam Cosmological Argument is clearly fallacious anyway you look at, it and my Pro didn't do very convincing job of proving otherwise.

2) If an argument is clearly fallacious everyway you look, it cannot be logically sound at the same time.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is not logically sound.

Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://serc.carleton.edu...
[3] http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Debate Round No. 3
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by CorieMike 2 years ago
CorieMike
No way! Rational Thinker clearly won this one... I was always interested in hearing a defence for the fallacy of equivocation and composition and I'm even more satisfied to see the defences so easily refuted by Con.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
It was a good debate, SuburbiaSurvivor is one of the better defenders of the KCA on this site.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
>.< I hate ties.

Well, Rational, good debate either way. Have a nice day, man.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Really now, TheBrorater? Either recede your vote or give an actual RFD.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
I see what you did there ;)
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
I prefer a local Royal BBQ when I flame. Paladin ribs cooked to perfection.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Guys. Go flame at each other somewhere else.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
Read.... the..... Resolution...

I honestly believe there are only 10 people on this website that know how to judge a debate. Have you ever had formal debate training? or even a philosophy class?
Posted by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
Gileandos, just because you do not have hundreds of votes does not mean that when you do vote, you do not vote in a biased manner.

So, you are in opposition to Jesus' branding of Thomas as "Doubting Thomas"? I thought that you agreed with everything Jesus did.
Posted by Gileandos 5 years ago
Gileandos
As I stated,
If I was pimping my view through the voting process, I would have literally hundreds by now.
Here is just one example of voting the opposing position.
http://www.debate.org...

You really need to stop digging your own holes then falling into them.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by tkubok 5 years ago
tkubok
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is correct. P1 is reffering to objects and energy that strictly exists within this universe. Furthermore the Big Bang states that the singularity is not a component but the entire universe itself, and thus treats it as a whole. Con is also correct in the "Begin to exist" argument of the equivocation fallacy as well. And yes, radiactive Decay is spontaneous. Also, Ex nihilo nihil fit has nothing to do with Cause, because there is nothing that is caused that produces an effect.
Vote Placed by johnnyboy54 5 years ago
johnnyboy54
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering TheBrorator. If you are going to give seven points, you better have a damn good RFD. Yours is nonexistent. EDIT: I took away all the points so TheBrorator would not be countered twice
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote 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: cOUNTER THE BRORATOR
Vote Placed by stubs 5 years ago
stubs
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Rational Thinker could not show that either of the premises nor the conclusion was false
Vote Placed by TheBrorator 5 years ago
TheBrorator
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Yeah... Back to the original vote.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 5 years ago
royalpaladin
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: I changed my mind. I think Pro won because he demonstrated that causes can be internal. I am giving Con conduct because what he argued was not actually the Kalam Cosmological Hypothesis, which attempts to prove that God exists. The premise of the debate was thus misleading. Overall however, since causes can be internal, I have to vote Pro.
Vote Placed by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Kinda a Counter V-Bomb. EDIT: I rebutted the contentions of the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of equivocation.
Vote Placed by WriterDave 5 years ago
WriterDave
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's approach was somewhat disingenuous. The KCA is so closely associated with Christian apologetics that its use as a tool to attempt to prove the existence of God is background knowledge, and in trying to gloss over the fact, Pro did not defend KCA against the ex nihilo objection. He also triggered a pet peeve that I have about over-reliance on Wikipedia.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that some events in modern physics defy ordinary experience. The KCA depends upon extending ordinary experience to cosmology, therefore the argument fails.
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
SuburbiaSurvivorRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: There was no demonstration of p1 being logically sound. He only repeatedly begged the question of god. Red herring is technique of distraction, but not a logical fallacy. To be a logical fallacy it has to be a false logical claim. This is garbage picked up from the internet. All Pros sources only go to Wikipedia and some other general site, but nothing related. A Plethora of pro’s condescending assertions were directed at Con.