The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Mike_10-4
Pro (for)
Tied
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 561 times Debate No: 98756
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

My opponent must argue that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound. The argument is as follows:

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

My job will only be to show that my opponent's reasoning to support the argument fails. My opponent will post his/ her first round immediately. Since I spent a round here explaining the rules, my opponent in his/ her last round will simply put "..." so we each have the same amount of rounds to argue.
Mike_10-4

Pro

Thank you Con (Rational_Thinker9119) for listing a segment of Kalam's philosophy pertaining to your list of (P1, P2, C) here in Round 1. May we both enjoy a mutual learning experience.

P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause
P2: The universe began to exist shortly after the Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
C: Therefore, the universe has a cause defined by the physical constructal law (http://www.tandfonline.com...)

The constructal law: “For a flow system to persist in time (to live) it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents.”
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

-Introduction-

I thank my opponent for engaging in this debate with me. My job is to show why Pro's reasoning to support the argument fails. To do this all I have to do is point out that this reasoning lacks any justification for believing the first premise:

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause"

Since his reasoning to support the argument lacks justification for this premise, Pro has not met his burden of proof in this debate.

My opponent additionally presents The Constructal Law, which is as follows:

"For a flow system to exist in time (to live) it must evolve freely such that it provides greater access to its currents."

The problem is that with regards to The Big Bang model my opponent sites, time also began at the moment of The Big Bang [1], as Stephen Hawking notes:

"... The universe has not existed forever. Rather the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in The Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." - Stephen Hawking [2]

This means that the universe as a whole is not within time, because that would suppose time existed before the universe. Since Pro's Constructal Law only applies to that which is within time; it cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. Ergo, Pro's reasoning here fails as well.

Even if it isn't necessarily the case that time began with The Big Bang, Pro must show that it is not the case to sustain his burden of proof. This has not been done.

-Conclusion-

My opponent has failed to sufficiently support the premises of the argument. Since I have shown this, I have met my burden in this debate.

Sources

[1] https://www.google.ca...

[2] http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Mike_10-4

Pro

"P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause"

All through the known time of the universe, “whatever begins to exist has a cause.” From the existence of pure energy flow at the “beginning” of time (the Big Bang) to today, the existence of everything has a cause defined by the constructal law. The result is everything existing today including Con and Pro having this debate.

Can Con prove this was not to be the case?
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

- Problem With My Opponent's Response

My opponent says that all through the known time of the universe it is true that whatever begins to exist has a cause because of the Constructal Law he cited. Even if this is true it still wouldn't support the notion that everything that begins to exist has a cause, just the notion that everything that begins to exist has a cause after the universe already exists. However, in order for it to be true that the universe has a cause, it must be true that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" prior to the universe; not just after the universe exists (since causes are prior to their effects).

- Shifting The Burden Of Proof

My opponent asks if I can show that his causal implications are false, I do not have to. All I have to do is show Pro hasn't succifiently supported the premise(s) properly, not actually do any falsification. Even if I was to grant what he is saying is true, I have still shown why it isn't proper justification for the premise in question.

- Conclusion

My opponent's support for the first premise fails. Thus, the argument has not been sufficiently supported. Also, Pro implies a shifting of the burden of proof.
Mike_10-4

Pro

Con stated, "However, in order for it to be true that the universe has a cause, it must be true that "whatever begins to exist has a cause" prior to the universe; not just after the universe exists (since causes are prior to their effects)."

The universe cause (the constructal law) and existence (Big Bang) happened simultaneously (aka at the same time). Therefore, cause did not happen after the universe existed. In other words, cause and existence happened at time equal zero (t=0) at the Big Bang event; otherwise, we will not be here.

The constructal law is the law of evolution. If the Big Bang happened before the cause of evolution we would not be here because there will be no difference between t=0 and any moment after zero. Therefore, the cause of evolution must be there at t=0 so any moment after zero will be different.

If Con claimed "causes are prior to their effects," then the Burden Of Proof is on Con that the constructal law happened before t=0.
Debate Round No. 3
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

- Refuting The Notion That The Constructal Law Caused The Universe

The problem with this line of reasoning is that laws of nature don't directly cause anything to begin to exist, they are merely descriptions. The law of gravity doesn't cause planets or moons to begin to exist for example, it is the force of gravity which does this. The law of gravity is just what describes the behaviour of the force but a description doesn't have sufficient causal powers itself. So even if the Constructal Law is true, that doesn't mean the law describing this behaviour could account for the beginning of the universe.

- My Oppoent's Support For The First Premise Of The Kalam Cosmological Argument Still Fails

Let's say that the Constructal Law (we will call it the CL) existed at the same time as the beginning of the universe at t=0 as my opponent implies, and didn't exist prior to the universe either temporally or ontologically. This means that the CL began to exist at t=O, but what reason do we have to believe that the CL had a cause? There must be some reason which justifies the notion that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Since Pro implies the CL itself began to exist, and had offered no external reason to believe the CL had a cause then it is still the case that the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is unjustified based on his argumentation.

The CL is not a causal principle that applies to whatever begins to exist, it is merely a description of universal evolution through time. My opponent is using a law which he has not shown supports the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, to try to support the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Even if the CL was a causal principle (which it isn't), perhaps it only applies to that within the universe and not the universe as a whole, or, perhaps there is another universe not described by the CL, maybe there is a supernatural world not described by the CL. All of these possibilities make it clear that the CL in no way shape or form is sufficient to support the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

- Conclusion

My opponent has failed to support the Kalam Cosmogical Argument as he has given no good reason to believe the first premise is true, all he has given us is some restrictive evolutionary principle that holds true in our universe, but not a causal principle that necessarily applies to "whatever begins to exist". He also said the CL caused the universe but laws of nature are descriptive and don't have the power themselves to create so this is false as well. Since my only job was to show that my opponent's reasoning to support the argument fails, and I have done so, one must be compelled to vote Con.

As per the rules my opponent will argue and rebuttal no more, and simply put "..." as we have each had 3 rounds to argue. I thank Pro for engaging in this debate with me.
Mike_10-4

Pro

Thank you Con for this debate and to summarize, Pro presented to Con the cause of our universe is simply evolution (aka the constructal law). That is at t=0, existence is the “Big” (packed with pure energy) and the cause is the “Bang” (the start of evolution); hence the Big Bang.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 1 year ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Of course it makes sense. It wouldn't make sense to attack an argument that hasn't been defended yet.
Posted by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
I mean, you've stated the syllogism that Pro is to use, so why don't you present your counter case first? It doesn't really make sense to make pro defend an argument that hasn't yet been attacked.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
uttering non sense is sound
No votes have been placed for this debate.