The Instigator
Ron-Paul
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Microsuck
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is a Sound Argument for God's Existance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/23/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,474 times Debate No: 24410
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing to this topic. I am going to make this max characters (8000 characters). I will have time. But only 4 rounds.

Rules:

1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics.
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure can not be changed in the middle of the debate.
5. In the case of the breaking of any of these rules, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Definitions:

Kalam Cosmological Argument:

"1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence."[1]
This cause is of course, God

Sound: "Competent, sensible, or valid""Having no defect as to truth, justice, wisdom, or reason."[2]

God: "The one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe."[3]

Existance: "The state or fact of existing, being.""Something that exists."[4]

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance.
Round 2: All arguments made (no rebuttals by con).
Round 3: Rebuttals against opponent's arguments (no new arguments).
Round 4: Defense of your original arguments (again, no new arguments).

Thank you Microsuck.

Sources:

[1]:http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
[4]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
Microsuck

Con

I would like to thank my good friend, Ron-Paul, for agreeing to debate this topic with me. I wish you the best of luck in the opening round.
Debate Round No. 1
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank Microsuck for accepting this debate.

I will start with the Kalam Cosmological Argument itself:

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.

I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of its Existance

I will quote one of the most famous laws from science, the Law of Conservation of Mass: "In any physical or chemical change, matter is neither created nor destroyed but merely changed from one form to another."[1] Matter can not be created out of nothing. Nothing can not produce something.

This part of the argument is pretty self-explanatory. Chemical reactions can not occur without the necessary materials; therefore, if there is nothing, there can be no chemical reaction to create something.

II. The Universe Has a Beginning of its Existance

Now on to another famous law of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time."[2] What are the implications of this? "Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy."[2]

But what does this prove? The universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. This can prove two seperate things.

First, it can prove that the universe had a beginning, since if it is expanding, and not static,since if we reverse time, we can see that the universe indeed had to exist because at some point, the universe would be smaller than anything that exists. This can be backed up by the Big Bang, which happended 14.7 billion years ago, ergo existance is not eternal.

Second, it can prove that the universe can not last forever, since if the universe is constantly expanding, and the quantity of energy is constant, but the quantity of usuable energy is decreasing, at some point, there will be no usuable energy left. This will result in "heat death" to the universe.

It is impossible to have an infinite, eternal universe. We can also see, in addition to the scientific viewpoint, see the logical fallacy in the eternal universe theory from philosophical theorization:

"1. If an infinite number of moments occurred before today, then today would never have come, wince it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of moments.
2. But today has come.
3. Hence, there was a finite number of moments before today; the universe had a beginning."[3]

III. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existance

This conclusion can be arrived at through just simple logic. If everything has a cause of its existance-since nothing can come from nothing-, and since the universe had a beginning-because of scientific and philosophical proof and reasoning-, the Universe had a cause of its existance. This need not be proven, since the rules of the conclusion have been proven, and through logic, the two can be put together into the conclusion the the Universe has a cause of its existance.

IV. Trying to Draw a Conclusion that God Exists

As I already proved, the universe has a beginning. Without God, there would have existed nothing before the universe, and without outside force, nothing can not produce something. Nothing is a state of non-existence. Nothing, not the universe, not the world, not humanity, not anything would be here right now if there wasn't a God.

However, God pre-dates the universe. The KCA states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, God is eternal. He has always existed and therefore has no cause because the argument only applies to things the have beginnings to their existance. We are contingent beings. Our existence was begun (caused) by God and we can only be kept alive at God's pleasure. A contingent race of beings could only have been created by a necessary being (God). God is a Necessary being because it is in His nature to exist. He has no beginning so logically, He will have no end.

As it would be impossible for the universe to have come into existence on its own, the only way it could exist is if there was an Intelligent Creator.

Sources:

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://www.allaboutscience.org...
[3]: Geisler, Norman L., The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, p. 399.
Microsuck

Con

I want to thank Ron-Paul for agreeing to this debate. Ron has been a great friend of mine for a while and it is a pleasure to be debating with him.

I will also start with the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA):


1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence.

There are a lot of problems with the KCA that it is hard to actually know where to start. Both of the premesies are wrong and I will (hopefully) explain why.

I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of its Existance.

First, what "begins to exist"? As the Law of Conservation of Mass says, as quoted by Ron-Paul: "In any physical or chemical change, matter is neither created nor destroyed but merely changed from one form to another."

What do I mean? Consider your car. Your car did not "begin to exist" rather it merely changed states from one form to another. And that is exactly how the universe is. The universe is eternal and my hypothesis is that it rather changed states from a hot dense core (big bang singularity) to where it is now.

So in short, this premise is baseless. It is the fallacy of "bare assertion" or "Ipse dixit" [http://en.wikipedia.org...;]

Moreover, we can observe cases of energy coming without any cause. They are called "fluctuations."

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)

Another case is creation of matter from a state of zero energy. It is possible because energy is positive and negative:

There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies 1983: 31-32)

Conclusions regarding premise 1:

1. The claim is baseless;
2. Nothing "began to exist" rather it has changed over time;

II. The Universe has a Beginning of Its Existence.

Scientists have NEVER proved that the universe has a cause. The BBT is not concerned with the origin of the cosmos; rather, it is concerned with its development over time. So science has NEVER proved this point; contarary to what a LOT of Theists believe.

III. Why the KCA is Wrong - The "B" Theory

The B-theory states that both past, present, and future all exist in a rd or n+1d block, and the present is the current image seen o the progression throughout this lock, no more real than those before or after. (Markosian, Ned 2010) This makes sense to say that the universe has had a past space-time boundary, it doesn't make sense to say it 'began to exist' as our bock was always there.

The KCA rest on the A-Theory of time [3] which unfortunately for my opponent, and Dr. Craig, most phsycists are B-theorists. [4]

IV. Why the KCA is Wrong - Iterating to Infinity

In his debate with Mr.Infidel, debate.org user "Thraymachus" notes:
If there are a past-infinite ensemble of causal events, then there is no first cause of the universe, in the same way there is no ‘first’ negative integer. Note this does not demand an infinite past duration of the universe – we can ‘cram in’ the infinite number of causal events hyperbolically, for example. (Thrasymachus 2011)

V. Final Conclusions

Both of the premises on the KCA are wrong. Moreover, it can be shown that the universe is indeed infinite in age and has evolved forms over time. Moreover, the KCA is wrong via the theories of time and the problem of iterating to infinity.

Thank you.

VI. Bibliographies and footnotes

1. Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Quoted <http://www.infidels.org...;

2.Markosian, Ned, "Time", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu... >.

3. The A-Theory is just the opposite. It states that only the present exists and the future will come into existence later on. See the url above.

4. http://philpapers.org...;

5. http://www.debate.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank Microsuck for presenting his arguments.

I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of Its Existance

Yes, but nothing happens without a cause. A door cannot open unless someone physically opens it or the wind blows it open. A ball will not roll down a hill unless someone pushes it. Also, a ball cannot roll down the hill unless someone first places it onto the hill in the first place. So I have two questions for my opponent. How did the material to create the big bang come into existance? And, what made it explode at that point, after being there for eternity?

As for this "energy",

"A fundumental principle of creation that Athiests have never learned is that in order for matter to be brought into being, its creator must already be in existance. An existance of some type must already be in existance in order to give existance to a thing which has no existance. When there's nothing in existance, nothing can be brought into existance... Therefore, it is right to conclude that God existed before any other thing existed, and He therefore created all matter and everything else that exists."[1]

Where did this energy come from? How did it come into being? Energy cannot be created or destoryed, as the First Law of Thermodynamics proves.

I will cover this more in Contention II, since it is more relevant there, and that is where my rebuttals stem from.

II. The Universe Has a Beginning of Its Existance

"Using the conservation of energy to argue against the beginning of the universe reveals confusion about cosmology to begin with. Scientists can extrapolate back to the beginning of the big bang–which is the moment when both space and time came into existence, along with all of the material world (Craig and Copan, cited below, 222ff). So we know scientifically that there was a moment when there was no matter at all. It was created, not out of other matter, but out of nothing. Here is the key to note: it is once the universe came into existence that the laws of nature came into effect–before the universe, there was nothing."[2]

"Quite simply, entropy is a measure of the unavailability of some energy to do work. So the less energy that exists to do work, the more entropy there is in the closed system. In addition, the correlation between entropy and disorder is such that where entropy is increased, disorder is proportionally increased. In regard to high-temperature energy systems (should the system be isolated), heat energy would eventually spread out over time throughout the system it inhabits. Once the dispersion is complete (or equilibrium is reached) then the energy begins to minimize until the energy 'runs out.'"[3]

The first paragraph extends my originial contention I. The second paragraph is an extension to my unanswered argument about how the second law of thermodynamics says that an infinite universe is impossible because there is a finite, unincreasing amount of usuable energy, with is constantly decreasing until "heat death". So, the universe could not have lasted forever and had a beginning to its existance.

In addition to this, more philosophical arguments,

"8. An actual infinite cannot exist.
9. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
10. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events can not exist."[4] As shown, there can not be an infinte number of moments before today because today would be unreachable.

Point 8 stands because of my unanswered contentions.

III. Why the KCA Is Wrong - The "B" Theory

"First, the B Theory of time greatly misconstrues some biblical ideas, one example being the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. For the B theorist, the universe beginning to exist simply means that it has a starting point, just like a yard stick has a first inch.{10} The problem is that on this view There is in the actual world no state of affairs of God existing alone without the space-time universe. God never really brings the universe into being; as a whole it co-exists timelessly with Him.{11} So while the universe depends on God, the idea of creation ex nihilo is severely stripped of meaning since the universe always timelessly exists with God. That is, in some sense, God and space-time seem to be equally necessary in their existence."[5] Another problem with the B-theory has to do with the philosophical question of infinite time I mentioned above.

In addition, I fail to see how 61 philosophy experts in a poll really means a lot on how much the B-theory is accepted.

IV. Why the KCA Is Wrong - Iterating to Infinity

But time is not infinite. Sorry, maybe I am misinterpreting this quote, but you are the one arguing that the universe is infinite.

V. Final Conclusions

I have proven the KCA.

Thank you Microsuck. I will have great arguments out for the final round.

Sources:

[1]:http://www.tencommandments.org...
[2]:http://jwwartick.com...
[3]:http://sguthrie.net...
[4]:http://www.bsu.edu...
[5]: http://www.probe.org...
Microsuck

Con

Thank you, Ron.

I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of Its Existance

First of all, the source "10 commandments" that you produced is NOT a reliable source. It would have been a lot better to cite a peer reviewed scientific article.

My opponent asks, "How did the material to create the big bang come into existance? And, what made it explode at that point, after being there for eternity?"

First of all, the quantum world does not act like the regular natural world. I'll requote the quote from my previous round:

In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies 1983: 162)

So, in other words, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere. It is unpredictable. Likewise, Stephen Hawkings has proposed a four dimensional universe. In this model, the universe may go through periods of increasing entropy during an expansionary phase and a period of reducing entropy during the contractionary phase. (Tobin, 2009). If Stephen is correct, this means that the universe could be an infinite number of cycles -- which the laws of physics allow.

You have given two quotations which, are unfortunately, from unreliable sources; once again, I'd prefer if you post peer reviewed scientific articles. Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton note:

The simple statement "something can not come out of nothing" is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, "vacuum fluctuations". In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. (Feuerbacher, Bjorn; Scanton, Ryan 2006)

Let's look at his philosophical arguments.

1. An actual infinite cannot exist;
2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite;
3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The problem begins with premise 1: An actual infinity can exist. My opponent has not defended premise 1 and until he does, it commits the fallacy of proof by assertion. However, if an infinite cannot exist, why can God exist?

III. Why the KCA Is Wrong - The "B" Theory

"It looks as if the A Theorist must choose between two possible responses to the argument from relativity: (1) deny the theory of relativity, or (2) deny that the theory of relativity actually entails that there can be no such thing as absolute simultaneity. Option (1) has had its proponents (including Arthur Prior), but in general has not proven to be widely popular. This may be on account of the enormous respect philosophers typically have for leading theories in the empirical sciences. Option (2) seems like a promising approach for A Theorists, but A Theorists who opt for this line are faced with the task of giving some account of just what the theory of relativity does entail with respect to absolute simultaneity. (Perhaps it can be plausibly argued that while relativity entails that it is physically impossible to observe whether two events are absolutely simultaneous, the theory nevertheless has no bearing on whether there is such a phenomenon as absolute simultaneity.)" (Markosian 2010)

""First, the B Theory of time greatly misconstrues some biblical ideas, one example being the doctrine of creation ex nihilo..."

First of all, what does this even mean? Who cares if it misconstrues biblical ideas and ex nihilo? I am quite confused at the quotaton that you have provided. Plese elaborate on the rebuttal.

IV. Why the KCA Is Wrong - Iterating to Infinity

Extend my argument.

Bibliography

Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. Quoted in my previous round.

Feuerbacher, Björn, and Ryan Scranton. "Evidence for the Big Bang." Evidence for the Big Bang. N.p., 25 Jan. 2006. Web. 27 June 2012. <http://www.talkorigins.org... >.

Markosian, Ned, "Time", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu... >.

Debate Round No. 3
Ron-Paul

Pro

I would like to thank Microsuck for this great debate. I've learned a lot.

I. Everything That Has a Beginning of Its Existance Has a Cause of Its Existance

This appearing and disappearing is so short that it is negligible.

"However, in quantum mechanics (appliable to microscopic phenomena), the vacuum is a much more complex entity. It is far from featureless and far from empty. The quantum vacuum is just one particular state of a quantum field (corresponding to some particles."[1]

"The properties of the Universe come from `nothing', where nothing is the quantum vacuum, which is a very different kind of nothing. If we examine a piece of `empty' space we see it is not truly empty, it is filled with spacetime, for example. Spacetime has curvature and structure, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. Thus, it is filled with potential particles, pairs of virtual matter and anti-matter units, and potential properties at the quantum level."[2]

"In the case of quantum events, there are any number of physically necessary conditions that must obtain for such an event to occur, and yet these conditions are not jointly sufficient for the occurrence of the event. (They are jointly sufficient in the sense that they are all the conditions one needs for the event's occurrence, but they are not sufficient in the sense that they guarantee the occurrence of the event.) The appearance of a particle in a quantum vacuum may thus be said to be spontaneous, but cannot be properly said to be absolutely uncaused, since it has many physically necessary conditions. To be uncaused in the relevant sense of an absolute beginning, an existent must lack any non-logical necessary or sufficient conditions whatsoever."[3]

So here, a Quantum Vaccum is not nothing, rather it still has particles. Its creation could be considered spontaneous, but it still had causes. Nothing does not exist, and nothing cannot create something. Scientific laws cannot be broken. This vacuum is teeming with energy, has physical dimensions and is still governed by quantum laws. And, where did the quantum vaccum come from?

"The answer to the question as to whether such models now provide plausible empirical explanations for the universe's origin is, of course, no, both because the theories are so problematic and underdeveloped and because there is no empirical evidence in their favor. Christopher Isham comments,

None of the schemes proposed so far are in any sense rigorous theories. This stems partly from the lack of any proper unification of general relativity and quantum theory. However, even setting this aside, the extant proposals are incomplete; in particular it is by no means clear that they do in fact lead to a unique quantum state. Major conceptual problems arise when trying to apply quantum theory to the universe as a whole. This problem is so severe that many highly respectable theoretical physicists think the whole subject of quantum cosmology is misconceived.

It follows from the above that theories of the quantum origin of the universe are highly speculative and do not have anything like the scientific status of, say, even the more exotic branches of modern elementary particle physics (Isham [1992], sec. 1.5)."[3]

Your Hawkings entropy theory is merely speculation, and disregards the realities of the universe. The universe itself is not a quantum microworld, and is forced to obey the laws of physics, even if they could be broken. Energy cannot be created, and energy is constantly being wasted, so it is just a matter of time until there is no energy left. Chaos rises.

Regarding the quote, again, a quantum microworld is not nothing. There exists energy in it.

"The creation of virtual pairs of particles does not violate the law of conservation of mass/energy because they only exist for times much less than the Planck time. There is a temporary violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy, but this violation occurs within the timescale of the uncertainty principle and, thus, has no impact on macroscopic laws.

The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe.

In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence.

With respect to the origin of the Universe, the quantum vacuum must have been the source of the laws of Nature and the properties that we observe today. How those laws and properties emerge is unknown at this time."[2]

These electrons have cause. See quantum fluctuations arise out of the quantum vacuum, which is not nothing at all, but is rather a complex structure of interconnecting vibrating fields of energy. Energy particles pop into and out of existence randomly out of this vacuum.

For that, here are some good articles on these "electrons".

http://maverickchristian.blogspot.com...
On a more peer reviewed note: http://arxiv.org...

As for my philosophical arguments:

"Craig's favorite thought experiment is that of Hilbert's Hotel. In this experiment, Craig describes a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms filled with an actual infinite number of guests. He then proceeds to demonstrate the absurdities that would arise if such a hotel were to exist. For instance, if all of the guests in the odd numbered rooms leave and all of the remaining guests move to the room number that is half of their current room number, then all of the rooms would be filled despite the fact that an infinite number of guests had checked out (∞ - ∞ = ∞). To further complicate the situation, if all of the guests from rooms four upwards checked out, then only three guests would remain (∞ - ∞ = 3). This, Craig argues, is absurd."[4]

We could never reach infinite time because the starting from the beginning and moving anywhere would be infinite. An infinite number of moments would take eternity to reach.

As for God's infinince, "The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. The whole point of the argument is to show that something CAN exist without a cause, namely, God. This is the "Impossibility of traversing an infinite rule. God escapes this because there is nothing successive about God's nature. He is traditionally viewed as unchanging, and this is metaphysically necessary as well. God did not have to endure through an infinite timeline as the world would have needed to."[5]

II. Why the KCA Is Wrong - The "B" Theory

When I mean misconstrues some biblical ideas, I mean that they are misinterpreted. My point still stands. As an addition to my infinite time arguments, "A second argument against the B Theory has to do with the impossibility of the existence of actual infinites. It has now been almost universally agreed upon by mathematicians and philosophers that an actually infinite number of things cannot be actualized in the space-time universe. The idea of actual infinites creates many paradoxes. For instance, what is infinity minus infinity? Well mathematically one gets contradictory answers. For example, one could say that the answer is infinity. But the answer could also be 4, or 0, or any other number you want. This led the great mathematician David Hilbert to say, The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought...the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.{14}

Thus, what we have in the space-time universe are not actual infinites, but potential infinites. For example, you can start counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and continue this process for a potentially infinite time (i.e., you can keep going as long as you want). But you will never reach a moment when you can stand up and exclaim, Im done! Ive counted to infinity! In the same way a line three inches in length can be divided in half, and then in half again, and then in half again, ad infinitum. But it can never actually be divided an infinite number of times. For this reason, in addition to compelling scientific and theological evidence, essentially all philosophers and scientists have now come to believe that time is finite in the past."[6]

"Taking Tense Seriously: The verbal tenses of ordinary language (expressions like ‘it is the case that', ‘it was the case that', and ‘it will be the case that') must be taken as primitive and unanalyzable."[7]

IV. Why the KCA Is Wrong - Iterating to Infinity

But the first negative number is not negative infinity with regards to the universe. I have already argued that the universe is finite, so the universe does not start at negative infinity, but at some finite number, like negative 14.7 billion for starters. We cannot ‘cram in' infinite time into a finite set of time. If there are infinite moments, you cannot get from the ‘first' moment to X moment because of the infinite time to get there. The amount of time is unchanging.

Thank you again Microsuck.

Sources:

[1]: http://universe-review.ca...
[2]: http://abyss.uoregon.edu...
[3]: http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
[4]: http://www.bsu.edu...
[5]: http://www.midwestapologetics.org...
[6]:http://www.probe.org...
[7]: http://plato.stanford.edu...
Microsuck

Con

I apologize to my opponent but I am unable to provide arguments for this round. Voters, please do not hold this against me but give Ron-Paul the conduct point.

Thank you, Ron, for such a great debate!
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
What possible justification can you offer for the claim that, if we divide everything that exists into "universe" and "the rest of existence," then causation doesn't apply to the rest of existence?
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. "everything that has a cause" can only refer to things within the universe.

Obviously untrue. "Everything" doesn't just refer to some things.
Or maybe you don't think the universe is a thing? The alternative is that it is nothing.

: To conclude from "everything (within the universe) has a cause" that the universe itself must have a
: cause, commits the fallacy of composition- verbatim in fact.

Correct. But to go from "Everything (not just within the universe, but actually everything) has a cause, to "Therefore, the universe has a cause," is not committing any fallacy at all.

: Assuming that since something that is true of part of the whole (1- "everything that has a beginning has
: a cause") then it must be true of the whole itself (2, 3- "The universe has a beginning..therefore the
: universe has a cause" is fallacious.

Yes, we get it. Do you get that they claim not to be doing that?

: The term "everything" can only apply to things within the universe, unless proponents wish to assert
: that things outside are universe must too be caused?

If you're going to use "universe" to refer to only part of what exists, you ought to warn people in advance.

Proponents of the first cause argument will say that begun things in the partaverse need causes, and begun things in the restoftheverse also need causes. They will likewise say that unbegun things do not need causes regardless of whether they are in the partaverse or the restoftheverse.

: I apologize for "rewording" the syllogism- I was attempting to clarify, not change the argument- but
: even with the wording as it is, it is invalid. The Law of Cause and effect only (and can only) apply to
: things within the universe.

That's as weird as anything they say. Why do you say that?
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. "everything that has a cause" can only refer to things within the universe.

To conclude from "everything (within the universe) has a cause" that the universe itself must have a cause, commits the fallacy of composition- verbatim in fact.

Assuming that since something that is true of part of the whole (1- "everything that has a beginning has a cause") then it must be true of the whole itself (2, 3- "The universe has a beginning..therefore the universe has a cause" is fallacious.

The term "everything" can only apply to things within the universe, unless proponents wish to assert that things outside are universe must too be caused?

I apologize for "rewording" the syllogism- I was attempting to clarify, not change the argument- but even with the wording as it is, it is invalid. The Law of Cause and effect only (and can only) apply to things within the universe.
Posted by flylike1 4 years ago
flylike1
(Sorry in advance for the spam- I don't think there's a way to delete or edit posts on here)

But if the argument is about the word "everything" (whether it applies to things within the universe or some theoretical infinite number of things that could ever exist) then the burden is on the person proposing the KCA to clarify, and make it less vague.
Posted by flylike1 4 years ago
flylike1
Wiploc-

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. "everything that has a cause" can only refer to things within the universe.

To conclude from "everything (within the universe) has a cause" that the universe itself must have a cause, commits the fallacy of composition- verbatim in fact.

Assuming that since something that is true of part of the whole (1- "everything that has a beginning has a cause") then it must be true of the whole itself (2, 3- "The universe has a beginning..therefore the universe has a cause" is fallacious.

The term "everything" can only apply to things within the universe, unless proponents wish to assert that things outside are universe must too be caused?

I apologize for "rewording" the syllogism- I was attempting to clarify, not change the argument- but even with the wording as it is, it is invalid. The Law of Cause and effect only (and can only) apply to things within the universe.
Posted by flylike1 4 years ago
flylike1
"The cause must itself be uncaused"

You have no frame of reference for which this can reasonably be said. This is no more than an assumption. Here's why-

The Law of Cause and Effect applies to things within the universe. To try and apply this to the universe itself commits the fallacy of composition. This is the same logical fallacy that the KCA commits, see my post from 4 days ago.
Posted by flylike1 4 years ago
flylike1
So...I'm new to this website.

Is my observation accurate that recruiting votes and having lots of friends to side with you when you debate is more important than actually debating well?
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Correction: "There is no more justification for making an exception for *unbegun* things.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
I apologize for my mis-vote, Pro. I still think Con had the better argument, but I should have voted Pro per the agreed rules.

Flylike wrote
: The KCA commits the fallacy of composition.
:
: 1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
: 2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
: 3. Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence
:
: In 1., it assumes that "every thing" in (within the universe) is governed by or subject to the same
: rules as the universe itself (in 2.).

As you have written it, there is no such fallacy.

You could write it, "Everything _in the universe_ that has a beginning," and then your point would be good, but proponents of the argument wouldn't agree to that phrasing.

So I think it would be more productive to point out that P1 is based on the observation that everything we observe has a cause. Therefore, these lines of attack:

- Therefore, it is wrong to break out begun things. If _everything_ we observe has a cause, then the logical inference is that _everything_ has a cause. There is no more justification for making an exception for uncaused things than there is for making an exception for things that happen on Tuesday.

- In fact, it is not true that everything we observe (not even everything we observe that begins) has a cause. The weight of scientific authority is that quantum events are uncaused.

- There is no sense in which god did not begin but the rest of the universe did. There is no sense in which the rest of the universe did not begin but god did.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
@Rational, Really? I think that's an easily dealt with objection. The cause must itself be uncaused, since we can't have an infinite regression of causes. It therefore follows that the first cause transcends time, or created time. Furthermore, in order to cause the existence of and entire universe ex-nihilo, tremendous power, perhaps even omnipotent, would be needed. What other being could that be but God?

You are kidding me right? Why must it be a being? You are presupposing sentience with no justification. There could be an uncaused and extremely powerful metaphysical plane of existence which is not intelligent or a "being" in the slightest. This would fall in line with the KCA and your comment here, and God still wouldn't even come close to being demonstrated. Try harder
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Ron-PaulMicrosuckTied
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: A longer RFD would just be pointless: conduct for obvious reasons, the vote goes to Microsuck because of the same reasons that R_T and wiploc made: essentially, the Grunbaum criticism. EDIT revisited rules.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Ron-PaulMicrosuckTied
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: The reason for my vote change is I forgot the terms. All 7 points to Ron-Paul because Micro-suck forfeited.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Ron-PaulMicrosuckTied
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: Con ff'd which was agreed upon to result in all 7-points to the other side.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Ron-PaulMicrosuckTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: conduct point for forfeit. Con made sense, but Pro contradicted himself frequently: Infinities aren't real, but god is eternal