The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Warlordnipple
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument 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: 10/10/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 38737
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. 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."

Warlordnipple

Pro

Kalam's argument is now outdated from what we know about space-time and so I would like to modernize the claim that the universe has a cause and state that the dimension of space-time has a cause.

Without being tricked into stating that there is or isn't a God, this is essentially a cause and effect argument.-

"Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics. They describe the relationship between a body and the forces acting upon it, and its motion in response to said forces. They have been expressed in several different ways over nearly three centuries,[1] and can be summarized as follows:
First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either is at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3]
Second law: The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to, and in the same direction as, the net force acting on the body, and inversely proportional to its mass. Thus, F = ma, where F is the net force acting on the object, m is the mass of the object and a is the acceleration of the object.
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that of the first body." -Wiki

Essentially this is the same argument as the cosmological argument. Everything that happens, happens because something happened before it, that caused the former to happen. Obviously causes and effects in this scenario are the same thing as they would be in physics, this idea can not really be refuted since there is no scientific evidence to show that things just materialize out of thin air for no rhyme nor reason. Every atom and particle in existence was a byproduct of causation. Following this chain of thought to its logical conclusion means that at some point there has to be an effect without having a prior cause, the end point of this train of thought would mean that something had to set all of this in motion and had to exist without having previously been created. The loophole in this argument is that space-time continuum is infinite and the universe is not therefore our universe operates cyclically (expanding until it becomes so dense it collapses in on itself and a new big bang). This would therefore mean that the space-time continuum is the cause of the universe and therefore it must have a cause of its own, just as an inanimate object can't exert force on other objects our current being could not exist without some amount of will on the part an "Unmoved mover" to use Aristotle's term for it, intervening in some way.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Introduction

Pro mentions Newton's laws, but doesn't really explain how they tie in with the argument. Also, we know that the these laws apply within the universe and to its parts, but we do not know if these laws apply to the universe as a whole; that would be a fallacy of composition. For example, we know that objects within the universe give off their gravity that is also within the universe, but if we look at the universe as an object, we cannot say it gives off its own gravity. That analogy was just to illustrate that something that is true for the parts, is necessarily true for the whole (especially when dealing with the universe). Either way, the relevance of Newton's laws as far as this argument is concerned as not been established. I will rebut the argument left by Pro after he outlined Newton's laws.

Rebutting My Opponent's Argument

In this section, I will be breaking down all my opponent's claims to show how they fail:

"Everything that happens, happens because something happened before it, that caused the former to happen." - Pro

Well, there are many physicists who would disagree based on Quantum Mechanics (assuming one includes sufficient causation as a requirement for a proper causal process):

"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[1]

"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physics[2]

Either way, we only observe things happening that have causes within space-time, and pertaining to the parts of the universe. If we can consider the universe as a whole as something that "happened", then it is not clear at all why is must follow the same rules as that which is in the universe. Once more, this just seems like a fallacy of composition. There also doesn't seem to be anything impossible with the idea of something happening, with there being no "before" it for anything to happen to cause it in the first place.

"Obviously causes and effects in this scenario are the same thing as they would be in physics, this idea can not really be refuted since there is no scientific evidence to show that things just materialize out of thin air for no rhyme nor reason." - Pro

The above is not true, as the nucleus splitting of atomic decay is something that is known to just happen spontaneously without a trigger cause:

"...This decay happens when a large unstable nucleus spontaneously splits..."[3]

Regardless, even if it was true that everything within the universe that happens has to have a cause, that doesn't mean it is true for the whole universe. Reasoning by composition is not absolute, and Pro needs to show the proper connection.

"Every atom and particle in existence was a byproduct of causation." - Pro

There are scientists who disagree with this as I have already shown. In order for Pro to meet his burden, he must show that indeterministic interpretations (like the Copenhagen interpretation) are false, as they entail acausality.

"Following this chain of thought to its logical conclusion means that at some point there has to be an effect without having a prior cause, the end point of this train of thought would mean that something had to set all of this in motion and had to exist without having previously been created." - Pro

Even if I were to grant this, perhaps the first state of the universe expanding is what set everything else off, with there being no "prior" to this first state at all for any cause to exist? Until this possibility is ruled out, then the resolution has not been confirmed.

"The loophole in this argument is that space-time continuum is infinite and the universe is not therefore our universe operates cyclically (expanding until it becomes so dense it collapses in on itself and a new big bang)." - Pro

Actually, this idea of a "big crunch" has been refuted by recent discovered regarding dark energy. The universe will most likely keep expanding without collapsing:

"Will the Universe expand forever or recollapse?

This depends on the ratio of the density of the Universe to the critical density. If the density is higher than the critical density the Universe will recollapse in a Big Crunch. But current data suggest that the density is less than or equal to the critical density so the Universe will expand forever."[4]

"This would therefore mean that the space-time continuum is the cause of the universe and therefore it must have a cause of its own" - Pro

This conclusion does not actually follow as true, as the support for its founding premises are faulty.

" ...just as an inanimate object can't exert force on other objects our current being could not exist without some amount of will on the part an "Unmoved mover" to use Aristotle's term for it, intervening in some way." - Pro

Again, this is a fallacy of composition. Even if every part of the universe that moves needs a cause, it wouldn't follow that if the whole universe moves, it needs a cause as well.

Conclusion

All of my opponent's support for the Kalam Cosmological Argument failed; the resolution has not been established.

Sources

[1] http://atheism.about.com...
[2] http://www.infidels.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.astro.ucla.edu...
Warlordnipple

Pro

Warlordnipple forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent forfeited.
Warlordnipple

Pro

Warlordnipple forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent forfeited.
Warlordnipple

Pro

Warlordnipple forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Actually, I've won plenty of debates on the Kalam where theists voted for me, the top theists on this site too (Philochristos, KRfournier ect..), so you cannot use bias as an excuse. In the last two good debates I had with theists on the Kalam (against Miles Donahue and KeytarHero), they both admitted fair defeat in the comment section.
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
I could win you in debate but all atheists come and suck ur d1ck and vote fr you
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
The KCA is a horrible argument for God, and it is very deniable. Debate me on it... I have never lost a debate on the soundness of the Kalam against a theist, and I have had at least 20 debates on the issue.
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Anti-atheist
the kca is powerful proof of god how can u deny
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
airmax1227
Rational_Thinker9119WarlordnippleTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro establishes an interesting opening in his R1 and it would have been interesting to see him defend it in later rounds. However, Con goes line by line showing the flaws in this argument to which Pro never replies. Thus all of Cons contentions remain uncontested as Pro FFs all remaining rounds. Therefore argument points to Con. Conduct points to Con for Pros FFs.