The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
The Contender
PowerPikachu21
Pro (for)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
PowerPikachu21 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 355 times Debate No: 101304
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

The Kalam Cosmological 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

The advocate of this argument must show that the argument is successful. My job in this debate will be to undermine my opponent's reasoning for affirming the soundness of the argument.

My opponent will present his/ her opening arguments in the first round (the first round will be for Pro to present arguments, not for merely accepting the debate). However, in order to ensure we get the same amount of rounds to argue, in the last round, my opponent will simply put "no argument will be posted here".
PowerPikachu21

Pro

I'll admit the Kalam argument is popularly argued for and against. I'll use this round to further explain its points.

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause,

No object can come from nothingness. A chair comes from a factory, a bunny comes from the magician's hat in the magic trick, fire fomes from heated molecules, I think you get the picture. If it didn't begin to exist, it always existed.

P2: The Universe began to exist.

There are many facts pointing to a beginning of the Universe, like the Big Bang, which the Universe started as a small dot, then expanded, and still is expanding.

Conclusion: The Universe had a cause.

The Kalam argument doesn't state it was God per se that made the Universe. I'll probably research a bit to come to a conclusion on how the Universe began its existence. But if everything with a beginning has a cause, and the Universe had a beginning, then the conclusion is sound.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I thank my opponent for his opening argument. The conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument rests upon both P1 and P2 being true. Therefore, if I can cast sufficient doubt on at least one of the premises then the argument does not succeed. I am going to focus on P2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

---P2: The Universe Began To Exist---

My opponent sites the standard Big Bang model as evidence that the universe began to exist. The problem with this is that the standard Big Bang model is certainly false, as it only takes Einstein's theory of General Relativity into account and doesn't take Quantum Mechanics into account. This point (or singularity) my opponent mentions will probably be obsolete once a complete theory of Quantum Gravity is formed. As John Barrow notes:

"It is widely accepted that this new improved theory [Quantum Gravity] will not contain the singular histories that characterized Einstein's theory." - John Barrow

Because we don't have sufficient knowledge of the early state of the universe we cannot say that the universe began to exist. There are Quantum Mechanical models of the universe in which the universe does not begin to exist. The Hartle-Hawking state is a proposal, for example, which states that ontologically prior to the "beginning" of time roughly 13.7 billion years ago, the universe exists as four dimensions of space and none of time (thus, we have a timeless state which does not begin to exist). One of the dimensions of space would essentially convert into time and the universe would evolve according to cosmic inflation [2].

In this model, time would have a "beginning" of sorts but the universe as a whole would not begin to exist. Since Pro has not ruled ideas like this out (which are completely compatible with all the evidence we have for The Big Bang), then Pro has not established that the universe began to exist.

Another possibility is that the universe itself is fundamentally timeless, and thus, never came into being. In the mid-1960's, there was a breakthrough equation meshing Relativity with Quantum Mechanics called the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This equation predicts a timeless universe. However, we clearly experience time so how could this be correct? Well Ekaterina Moreva and her team showed how time emerges from Quantum Entanglement [3]. This means that observers in the universe experience time but the universe is fundamentally timeless and changeless. Since Pro has not ruled this idea out (which is compatible with all the evidence we have for The Big Bang), Pro has not shown that that the universe began to exist.

An additional possibility is that even if time is fundamental and the universe had a first state along side a first moment in time, it wouldn't follow that this initial state came into being (it could have just existed for that split moment 13.7 years ago and expanded, without coming into being). If this was the case, then the opponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument could agree that the universe has a finite age, but not have to agree that it came into existence from nothing. Since by "begins to exist" the proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument means "come into being", then unless this possibility is ruled out; Pro has not shown that the universe began to exist.

---Conclusion---

I provided 3 alternatives to the universe beginning to exist that Pro has not ruled out. Therefore, Pro has not shown that the universe began to exist.

---Sources---

[1] https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://medium.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No it does not..There is only "swimm" and you have to create a mother and a stone..
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 1 year ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Actually the Kalam Argummet doesn't take that logical form.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
No it is words..My mother can not swimm..A stone can not swim..So she must be a stone..Amen..
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.