The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
LaughingRiddle
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 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 52180
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

For those of you who know me, this debate will not be a surprise. This is one of my favorite arguments to debate.

My opponent must show that this argument is sound:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

P2: The universe began to exist

C: Therefore, the universe has a cause

The first round will be for my opponent's first argument. To ensure we get the same amount of debating rounds however (because I just wasted this round), my opponent, in my last round, must simply put:

"No argument will be posted here as agreed"

Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit.
LaughingRiddle

Pro

This looks like fun.

Your argument says everything has a cause, but then this must imply every cause has a cause.

This argument seems to end in an infinite regress, which is not considered logically sound.

If something caused the big bang and the universe to exist, the question merely changes to what caused that to exist?

The real answer is the universe has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and that cause has a cause, and so on as a consquence of this arguement. Again, infinite regresses are not usually seen to be strong proof or stricly logical because it is not a true explanation of 'why or how'. Infinite regress can be likend to a cricular arguement trying to proves itself by taking itself as the basis or mode that connects the premise to its conclusion.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"This looks like fun.

Your argument says everything has a cause, but then this must imply every cause has a cause.

This argument seems to end in an infinite regress, which is not considered logically sound."

The argument says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not everything has a cause. You obviously didn't read the argument. Whatever caused the universe might not have began to exist, meaning, it wouldn't necessarily require a cause as far as the argument is concerned.

But most importantly, I am Con and you are Pro. Meaning, that I am against the Kalam, and you are for the Kalam. Therefore, by arguing against the Kalam, you are arguing for the wrong side, and are stepping on your own foot.

The burden of proof is in Pro to show that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. Since no arguments have been given for that notion, the debate is leaning in my favor by default.

LaughingRiddle

Pro

"The argument says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, not everything has a cause. You obviously didn't read the argument. Whatever caused the universe might not have began to exist, meaning, it wouldn't necessarily require a cause as far as the argument is concerned."

I read it, I just thought it was irrelevent.

This is implcity saying a 'cause' of something does not in itself exist. How is this supportable?

Mustn't the cause of something itself exist if the thing it causes also exists? How could something that doesn't exist cause something to exist? I wish to see examples and a logical reasoning of the nonexistance causing the existance, for at least this requires some kind of rational and evidence.

Either it exists or it doesn't, and if it doesn't exist it has no being, and something without being cannot be said to be part of Metaphysical reality. It is hard to see how something not part of the metaphysical reality could logically be reasoned to cause something that is part of reality, or reality itself.

"But most importantly, I am Con and you are Pro. Meaning, that I am against the Kalam, and you are for the Kalam. Therefore, by arguing against the Kalam, you are arguing for the wrong side"

Then we have nothing to debate because we agree; or more accurately there is no debate taking place. This arguement is fundementally illogical and cannot be made so without relying on unspportable forms of reasoning. I saw in your debates you were PRO for the debate 'not all endless regresses are illogical,' I mistakenly took that to mean you would support this arguement. When in fact they are somewhat opposite positions.

I suppose this is then not-so-fun.

Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

There is a huge difference between these two statements:

1. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

2. "Everything has a cause"

If 2 is true, then even necessarily existing eternal entities would require causes, which they don't by definition. My opponent is attacking an argument that nobody is making, this is called a straw-man logical fallacy.

The Kalam Cosological Argument is definitely not sound, but not because of any of the reasons mentioned by opponent. Either way, he concedes the debate, as he has been arguing for the wrong side.
LaughingRiddle

Pro

Maybe this will be fun.

"
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause

P2: The universe began to exist

C: Therefore, the universe has a cause"

Your logical structure is simply not immune to people using it to draw consquences from it that can be used against it. This is a standard way of analyzing the merit of philisopical arguments or claims. Very standard. Your premises and conclusion must be viable to the face of inferences that can be drawn from it if they are not to be illogical. If these inferences cannot be drawn, you must reasonably state why they cannot be so.

You have failed to do this in regards to the nonexistant causing the existant, or why a cause does not simply mean another cause causesd it.

Since this is a clearly a philosphical question, a metaphysical one at that, you must be aware in metaphysics words must be taken at their literal implications and everything that dervies from those implications?

"My opponent is attacking an argument that nobody is making, this is called a straw-man logical fallacy"

Not at all, your arguement is stating as fact that the universe has a cause. Nothing in this states the cause cannot have a cause, you merely avoid the possibility by saying something that exists has a cause and cannot exist itself. Or rather than saying that, you refuse to see the relvance of such a point. By attacking this point I can challegne the conclusion, which all I am obligated to do. Whether it plays by your rules is irrelvent, in philosophy the rules of logic dictate. And if you refuse to entertain this point you must explain why it illogical, and not merely say it is not what you said, when your conclusion DEPENDS on this being implict.

I quote you:

"Whatever caused the universe might not have began to exist, meaning, it wouldn't necessarily require a cause as far as the argument is concerned. "

In metaphyscus 'might not' does not suffice, either exists or it does not. Since it only 'might not' that does not preclude anyone from sticking the question to you, does it or does it not exist? From there the infite regress allegation follows.

'Either way, he concedes the debate, as he has been arguing for the wrong side."

Technically this isn't a debate since we don't diagree, but it is becoming a debate over the implications of your words.

You are asking me to ignore logical questions that naturally result from your premises and conclusion, and instead of facing them you deny they exist. Clearly denying somethings existance requires rationalizatin you have no provided.

I sense defensiveness becoming someone who feels threatend. Have I stolen your debate from you?
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Ya, well, anyway, my opponent screwed up and picked the wrong side. Since the first round clearly stated that the burden was on Pro to show the argument was sound, and he failed to show the argument is sound and actually argued against the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I win by default.

Reminder:

Pro must only put

"No argument will be posted here as agreed"

...in the last round, or else all 7 points go to me, as per the rules.

Thank you.
LaughingRiddle

Pro

No argument will be posted here as agreed.

But maybe I can make an observation, we did not debate KCA but something else. Voters will have to decide to vote based on the title argument and me picking the side opposite of what I agree with, or by what was actually debated in each round. To you guys.

I had fun.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 2 years ago
LaughingRiddle
I didn't present any new arguments in the final round. I just made a general obsevation about the debate itself.

That should suffice for your conditions. If not, you are a control freak and don't even believe in letting people speak their minds.

Also, most real debates let you reiterate your previous arguments, as it brings nothing new and there is no advantage in it. I already said in round 2, I said we are not debating because we agree (that the KCA isillogical), but it maybe we started debating something else.

Either way this is an obsevation and not an argument, or is within the commonly accepted debate fairness of brining no new material in the final round.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You weren't supposed to argue in the last round, just put "no argument posted here as agreed".

Since you followed that with an argument (which you called an "observation"), you broke the rules, and lose the full 7 points.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 2 years ago
LaughingRiddle
No argument will be posted here as agreed.

But an observation, the course of what we did debate was not on KCA; despite the title.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 2 years ago
LaughingRiddle
typo, meant for a different debate a clicked on a different tab.
Posted by LaughingRiddle 2 years ago
LaughingRiddle
Normative multiculturalism; the political and ideological policies that promote multiculturalism and institutionalize it.

As a descriptive term, it refers to the cultural or ethnic diversity in a society.

The result of this over time seems to go from:
ideological multiculturalism, meaning the mere ideology and willingness to accept immigrants of many cultures in large numbers, to:
the end results of creating a multicultural society in fact ; in the sense of demographics and %s.

My arguments lists problems a multicultural society can bring, and by doing so argues against the ideology of multiculturalism to prevent the problems of a multicultural society.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 2 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
I didn't even realize that it was only three rounds, I just changed it now.
Posted by Intrepid 2 years ago
Intrepid
Lol, a three round debate on the KCA. Its almost like you expect your opponent to forfeit.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
I would, but even I'll acknowledge its impossible to fulfill the BOP, even if I gave a million examples.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
philochristos
Rational_Thinker9119LaughingRiddleTied
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: Adjusted my vote because "Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit," and one of the rules was to simply put "No argument will be posted here as agreed" in the last round.
Vote Placed by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
Rational_Thinker9119LaughingRiddleTied
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: Pro argued against the KCA every single round, and for some reason failed to grasp that HE IS PRO FOR THE KCA. This means he conceded the debate, ultimately, so I consider it a 7 point loss.