The Instigator
Illegalcombatant
Con (against)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument(Part 2)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Itsallovernow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,039 times Debate No: 14177
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Illegalcombatant

Con

*Even thou I have recently started another debate on this topic, I have doubts whether my opponent is going to participate in it, there fore I am putting up another debate on the same topic with same arguments.

I would like to explore some idea's and arguments against the The Kalam Cosmological Argument, and its addition arguments which result in the conclusion....... "that the cause of the universe must be a personal, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and enormously intelligent being, which is God"

I as the Con will be arguing against the Kalam argument and its additions that conclude their is a "God"

My opponent as the Pro will argue for and defend the Kalam argument and its additions that concluded their is a "God"

The Kalam argument is...........

1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2)The universe began to exist.
3)Therefore, the universe has a cause.

My first objection is to the 1st Premise........

1)Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

But what exactly does it mean to "begin" to exist. Lets look at an example such as the universe. If some one claims that the universe "began" to exist, surely what they mean is that a transition of the universe existence has occurred, it went from not existing to existing.

Now I think its clear that something comes into existence comes AFTER its non existence. For instance you were born after you did not exist, its impossible that your existed before your non existence.

Non existence THEN existence, that's all I am saying.

But notice the temporal (time) relations that exist here, the Non existence state of something has a temporal relation (exists before) the existence of that something.

so the first part of my argument is

1) Something which "begins" to exist, is a transition of somethings non existence to existence
2) Somethings non existence must be the state before its existence
3) There fore the two different states (non existence to existence) have temporal relations. (That is to say somethings non existence state is before its existence)

If it is accepted that time began along with the universe, then the universes could of NOT began to exist, and I will show why

If the universe began to exist, then its non existence must of being the case before its existence.

But this is impossible if the universe began to exist along with the first moment of time, as their is no "before" the first moment of time, there fore their is no prior state where the universe does not exist.

1) Something which "begins" to exist, is a transition of somethings non existence to existence
2) Somethings non existence must be the state before its existence
3) There fore the two different states (non existence to existence) have temporal relations. (That is to say somethings non existence state is before its existence)

4) There was no "before" the universe
5) There fore the universe non existence has never been
6) There fore The universe has not gone from a transition from a state of non existence to a state of existence
7) Therefore the universe did not begin to exist.

To give a more simplified summary version of my argument

1) The universe has existed as long as time has existed
2) Therefore their is no time where the universe has not existed
3) Therefore the universe has always existed
4) Something which has always existed can not "begin" to exist
5) Therefore the universe did not "begin" to exist
6) Something which does not begin to exist and has always existed has no external cause
7) Therefore God did not cause the universe

I look forward to Pros response.
Itsallovernow

Pro

Thank you for the debate.

My opponent's first argument is correct, however, he misappropriates the proper use of the term state.

2) Somethings non existence must be the state before its existence

DEFINTIONS:
State- the way something is with respect to its main attributes (wordnet.princeton)

ARGUMENT:

If something does not exist, it does not have a state. The state of something is the status of an existing being, entity, object, etc. The state can not exist if it does not. In this, his third arguments is flawed that they have temporal relations, because one can not exist or have an acknowledgable state until it does exist. Therefore, non-existance can not have a state-of-being, for there is not "being".

I would furthermore like to clear up the issue with time. Time is not something that exists, time is a calcuable predictablity by man. There is no set time for the universe. If the universe did not exist, then there was no time. My opponent can not say that Earth took seven days to make (as said in Genisis), because no clear God or text has been established and it did not define then how many Earth hours it was.

I agree that there was no "before" the universe. It is proven fact that the universe is expanding. What lies beyond that point? Nothing! The universe is constantly being created. If you go back a millenia, the universe would not be nearly as big. We can assume then that the universe, going back far enough, contracts to the point of nonexistence. There is theory that the universe was a plasmitic substance before "creation". Things would have remained the same if not for evolution of the plasma, inciting the multi-changing universe. The plasma could be considered as clay for God, for if God was the first thing, he had to create this plasma. Who's to say God isn't a plasma being who is not a physical entity, but an omnipotent being and that we humanize him to a point to cope with what reality may be beyond our minds? After all, Aristotle couldn't have believed nutty squirrels were once cells, no more than specks. For spirits, it is believed by some scientist that this is what we return to when we die resulting in ectoplasmic images of actual people (ghosts).

I will say that the universe AS WE KNOW IT did not exist. Nutty, angry squirrels didn't exist past a cell at one point, though that was their existence. Everything must have a beginning, even according to Newton's laws. We must look at the world we know to provide proof for what we can not readily prove; we must attack it bit by bit. Newton's Laws of Cause and Effect prove and support my theory that there is a cause to the Universe. If something doesn't exist it can not have a temporal relation.

Everything must have a point to where it can not be taken apart and divided, such as atoms. Logically, it is possible to divide something, but there's always a starting point, an initial building block. For the universe, God was that initial block. You must have to have something in existence to build with before you can build, but there's always something to create it. Most people focus on the blocks, but the person who controls the creation is the builder. The matter it builds with is irrelevant to the initial cause, which is God.

"Something will not exist unless there is a reason for it's existence. This rests on the premise that...we can account for everything in it being here for a specific reason. But the universe as a whole requires a further reason for existence, and that reason is God." I would again like to stress that the non-existence is not a state. My non-existent child does not have a state- I must create it.

http://skyserver.sdss.org...
http://skyserver.sdss.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Illegalcombatant

Con

I thank Con for their response.

Con says "If the universe did not exist, then there was no time. My opponent can not say that Earth took seven days to make (as said in Genesis), because no clear God or text has been established and it did not define then how many Earth hours it was."

This is a baffling statement, I don't know why Con is bringing up a creation myth, and applying it to me, as if I am arguing for this claim, just baffling, but moving on..........

Con objects to the claim that the non existence of something precedes its existence. Lets look at the possibilities of something that began to exist.

Con uses an example of their non existent child, I would ask, if you have this child........

1) Would you agree that the child has not always existed ?
2) If the child did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where the child did not exist ?
3) Would you agree that that state of reality where the child does not exist, preceded its existence ?

If Con objects to this, I would point out, that claiming that something existing before it exists is a contradiction. Therefore something existing can only happen during its existence and after it "began to exist".

Something non existence must be the state before its existence", I will try and reword premise 2 to make it clearer what I meant..............

Premise 2) If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist.

My opponent has some claims made, in their Nutty Squirrel Argument, I shall now refer to this illustration and claims made within this illustration as the NSA = (N)utty (S)quirrel (A)rgument. In Cons NSA they claim "Nutty, angry squirrels didn't exist past a cell at one point, though that was their existence."

This is a composition fallacy http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

Lets consider............

1) Humans are made of atoms
2) Therefore humans are atoms

Lets look at Cons argument

1) Nutty angry squirrels are made of cells
2) Therefore angry squirrels are cells

This shows the falseness of claiming that the existence of the squirrel is the same as the existence of a cell.

Con says "For spirits, it is believed by some scientist that this is what we return to when we die resulting in ectoplasmic images of actual people (ghosts)"

Now if Con had said, that people believe in ghosts, that would be one thing, but con claims some scientists, why does Con do this ? It seems to me Con is making a hidden inference that if a scientist believes it, it must be science.

Science is based on such things as, predictive power of a modal, repeated observation, testing by others, falsifiability. Is Con claiming that this theory ghosts are caused by a plasma is science ?

Con says "For the universe, God was that initial block. You must have to have something in existence to build with before you can build"

It seems to me, that Con is claiming that God is some sort of physical substance, that is the first material from which all other materials are made from. Trouble is that claim refutes the definition of God as defined as "immaterial".

Con says "Everything must have a beginning, even according to Newton's laws." and "Newton's Laws of Cause and Effect prove and support my theory that there is a cause to the Universe"

Ok lets accept Newtons law here, everything has a beginning, if God exists then God has a beginning. This refutes God as being "beginningless"

To say their is a alot of mistakes in Con's arguments would be an understatement. I will leave it to Con whether they will drop their arguments and concede them as fallacious or if they continue to defend them as true.

I would also remind Con seeing your last comment was "I would again like to stress that the non-existence is not a state. My non-existent child does not have a state- I must create it."

If you do have a child........

1) Would you agree that the child has not always existed ?
2) If the child did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where the child did not exist ?
3) Would you agree that that state of reality where the child does not exist, preceded its existence ?

I look forward to Con's reply.
Itsallovernow

Pro

NSA :)

My opponent states: "Would you agree that means their was a state of reality where the child did not exist ?" No, because if the child is not part of reality, it can not be considered. The only thing that can be considered is that I have no children. Because if you say that, I could never have a child. Then the statement you just gave would be false, because that reality will never be. Therefore, not reality and not a state-of-being, which is likely, seeing I'm gay. Nonexistence is not a state- a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma is a state. If it is none of these, it is not reality. NOTHING can be in a state of nonexistence, because it is not even real enough to sustain a state, only a fact. Unicorns are not a state of existance, but it is fact they don't exist. However, the IDEA of them can. You can only see the picture drawn, and that's as near as reality as they can get.

My opponent made a well-place point on my NSA; however, I think it backfired. He is saying, that something had to cause the existance of the squirrel before it was created. However, he is saying that at one point it did not exist until something else CAUSED it. If you go back far enough in time, everything was a like at one point until something changed it. The universe as we know it did not exist.

If a professional, expert scientist says something is scientific fact, it can be accepted, legally and socially. There are, however, some scientist who believe these are anomalies, paranormal activity that can not be readily explained. The true nature of "ghosts" or "spirits" have yet to have been 100% proven, but scientific evidence has increased over the years with technologies.

I am not claiming God is anything. That can not be proven and is not the objective of this debate. I honestly have no clue what or who God is, but I know he exists. The example I gave with the blocks was a metaphor. What the principal is is that God is the builder. Whether he has hands, tentacles, or is just pure energy- I don't know, but I know He's there.

God IS the beginning. He is everything and nothing. The causation of everything He did had a consequence, but there is no consequence to God. If he is pure energy, then the universe was started by an unexplainable anomaly. Evolution, even.

I will not entertain the fact that I have a child, because I do not. I would be entertaining a non-existent subject! Something that will probably never exist because I like boy-holes.

Furthermore, my opponent completely ignored my arguement of the universe expanding and how it is not as big now as it will be in a few minutes.
Debate Round No. 2
Illegalcombatant

Con

In my last round, I confused Pro and Con, I kept referring to my opponent as the Con, when I should of said Pro. Never the less the arguments are still the same.

Pro says "Furthermore, my opponent completely ignored my argument of the universe expanding and how it is not as big now as it will be in a few minutes"

Yeah I saw it, but what was the argument ? the universe is expanding therefore...............?

Pro says "I am not claiming God is anything. That can not be proven and is not the objective of this debate"
The Kalam argument and its additions is used as an argument for the existence of God as defined in round 1. The objective of the debate is me attacking the Kalam and its additions and you defending it.

I would remind Pro that I reworded premise 2 too "Premise 2) If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist."

I ask Pro to refer their objection to this, cause I don't want to argue over semantics, and I believe this re wording of premise 2 is less open to attack on the grounds of semantics.

Pro says "State- the way something is with respect to its main attributes", at this point I would like to point out the difference between something having attributes, and a description of something. For example if I say that Pro didn't exist before he was born, I am not saying that he had attributes of non existence, but rather its a description of reality where and when he did not exist.

Which leads me to my next point, what do we mean by existence and reality. By existence we mean that which exists. But also notice that if something exists, it means it does not not exist (yes double negative), and if something does not not exist, then it does exist. So by referring to existence you are also referring to non existence.

Too exist is contradictory to not existing
Too not exist is contradictory to existing

Premise 2) If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist.

1) Something which "begins" to exist, is a transition of somethings non existence to existence
2) Premise If X began to exist, X existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist.
3) There fore the two different states of reality (non existence to existence) have temporal relations. (That is to say somethings non existence state is before its existence)

In support, of this argument, I would like to make some points

1) Something that begins to exist can't exist before it exists (this should be self evident)
2) Something that begins to exist can't have always existed.
3) Therefore something that begins to exist, did not exist in the past.

Once this is accepted and the claim that the begining of the universe was the first moment of time

4) There was no "before" the universe
5) There fore the universe non existence has never been
6) There fore The universe has not gone from a transition from a state of non existence to a state of existence
7) Therefore the universe did not begin to exist.

1) Would you agree that the you have not always existed ?
2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ?
3) Would you agree that state of reality where you did not exist, preceded its existence ?

Pro says "God IS the beginning. He is everything and nothing" Everything is the total of that which exists, nothing is the absence of existence. Something can't exist and be absent of existence. Or to put in more simply, this claim makes no sense. Also claiming God is the beginning contradicts God as being "beginningless".

I look forwards to Pros response.
Itsallovernow

Pro

My argument in relation to the universe was that if it was smaller ten minutes ago, and ten before that, then there must be a time that it did not exist! Because if it's even expanding it had to start somewhere. To exist at one point would be to exist without expanding, because you say it's always been there. Your argument is flawed because it's proved that it's always been expanding. It must have been created if it had a starting point, which it did because it is only logical that if you go back for enough time it had not to exist. If you argue otherwise you're saying it always existed and if that is so, then it had a point to where it was the same, which, as proven, it has never stopped growing and changing. So, something had to begin the ever-expanding universe- God.

"the physical four-dimensional world each of three dimensions of space is closed on itself as a ring, and the ring expands from zero at flowing of time but the dimension of time is not closed and hasa point of the beginning - the point of so-called "Big Bang", that is to say the point of a beginning of existence not only of space but also of time, and of matter" God is the answer to that. Since God is not the object of this debate, I do not have to explain the omnipotent, omnitemporal, and all other omni's of God. (http://n-kronov.chat.ru...)

You misinterpreted what I meant by "God is everything and nothing." I had intended for it to be read as everything in relation to the universe, and of no relation to it, but not of nonexistence. If he created it, we are of no relation to God, but by creation.

I do not like how you changed (or modified) your argument solely to allow you more room to manuever. I would like you to think about this, though. My nonexistent kid is as nonexistent as unicorns. If something exists now that did not before, it had no state of anything. The only existing thing is 'James does not have a kid.'. You can not say the kid is real unless you are the cause of it's creation because it's just as likely to exist as unicorns. Even then, you can't say that until it exists, which it never may, so you can't say that nonexistence is a state.

I would like you to consider this...you state that I was nonexistent before I was born....but what if I was never born? Would I be in a state of nonexistence, or simply not exist? I would be trapped in that state forever, but how can I have a state of nonexistence if I don't? That would open up infinite realms of nothingness which is just silly.

The IDEA of my kid's existence is real, but not the actual existence of the kid, or a unicorn. I did not exist in a state of nonexistence. To say that is a paradox. If I don't or did not exist I have no quality or state of being.

"I would like to point out...it's a description of reality that he did not exist." Exactly! The idea, the description of me was reality, but I was not. You can not make nothingness real by personifying it.

"...x existence came after a state of reality where it did not exist." There is no reality for nonexistant things! In the sentence, X is a noun. A physical thing can't exist in a non existing state of reality. This theory was created. If it was in a reality of nonexistence then it was always there, which can not possibly be. It was not because it had no state of anything before the creation of it's thought!

Your entire case falls here, "Something which begins to exist, is a transition..." IN order for transition, it had to exist before! Transition to adulthood for example, a 'new adult'. It existed before! Then you say "Something that begins to exist can not exist before it exists." but you contradict yourself by using the word transition. There is no transition, just creation!

I propose a more logical change to your wording, the only one that makes sense without paradox. "Something that begins to exist is a creation of existance (not transition)."

This contradiction, I have proven, disproves my opponents case because things, as proven, must be created before existence. Thus, the universe was created...by God.



Debate Round No. 3
Illegalcombatant

Con

Pro Says "My argument in relation to the universe was that if it was smaller ten minutes ago, and ten before that, then there must be a time that it did not exist! Because if it's even expanding it had to start somewhere"
This conflates expansion as the same with beginning to exist. Pros' argument is.....
1) The universe is always expanding
2) Therefore the universe began to exist
Even if we accept premise 1 here, that only proves that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, not that the universe it self had a beginning.
Pro says "It must have been created if it had a starting point, which it did because it is only logical that if you go back for enough time it had not to exist"
Notice here pro is claiming that there was a state of reality in the past where the universe did not exist.
So pro is saying that the universe did not always exist, and that the universe not existing (please refer to note 1)was the reality BEFORE its existence. This affirms what I have been saying all along, that something that begins to exist comes AFTER it did not exist.
(Note 1: The claim that the universe did not exist, is a description of reality, and is not giving attributes to something that does not exist yet, in this case the universe)
Now the trouble with this argument, is that in the Kalam argument, that time began to exist too, that time began to exist along with the beginning of the universe. My argument is as follows..........
1) There was no "before" the universe
2) Therefore there has never being a time where the universe has not existed.
3) There for its impossible for the non existence of the universe to be the state of reality before the existence of the universe
4) Therefore the universe did not begin to exist.
In order to drive this point home, about something that begins to exist, comes after a state where it did not exist, I will answer my own questions I asked Pro, and also ask that they answer them too. If you get a different answer than my answer, please explain why.
1) Would you agree that the you have not always existed ? Yes
2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ? Yes
3) Would you agree that this state of reality where you did not exist, preceded its existence ? Yes
I look forward to Pros reply.
On a side note, has anyone else noticed that what ever changes they have made to debate.org it has screwed up the spacing in between lines.





Itsallovernow

Pro

My opponent says: "Even if we accept premise 1 here, that only proves that the expansion of the universe had a beginning, not that the universe it self had a beginning." But that was not the fact I gave. He is creating his own theory with no source. Proven fact states "It's expanding and it has always expanded." Something that expands must have a beginning of expansion. Since it did not according to my fact, then it had to have been created. (God created it)

My opponent said: "The claim that the universe did not exist, is a description of reality, and is not giving attributes to something that does not exist yet, in this case the universe" You can only say that AFTER it's existence! You can not say it before! Creation must come first! (God created the universe).

My opponent said: "This affirms what I have been saying all along, that something that begins to exist comes AFTER it did not exist." Then if everything exists after it did not exist, then the universe (aka everything) had to have a point where it's existence was created. (God created it)

My opponent said: "Now the trouble with this argument, is that in the Kalam argument, that time began to exist too, that time began to exist along with the beginning of the universe." Time had a point of nonexistence. Time is relative. Time was only created by man to calculate measuremental predictability between two or more events. Man created time; not God. (God created the universe; time did not exist with God, for he is omnitemporal) If nothing existed besides God, then there is nothing to base time. If you sit in a dark basement for a long time, you can not calculate the measured predictability of time, because in nothing, time can not exist. You must have a outside influence to base the measurement on.

In counterment to your numbered arguements:

1) God existed before the universe
2) Therefore there was a time when the universe did not exist.

You know I exist now, so it's easy to say that I had a state of nonexistance, that my existence was going to be fact, therefore I existed. But it's not easy to say "I am going to be a father one day, therefore my child John Smith will exist. Therefore, he exists in a state of nonexistance now." Then daddy-wannabe gets in a car a dies. Does the kid exist in a state of nonexistance, or is he just trapped in that realm? You point out something exists in a nonexistent state unless you're God and you know that. If you're God, then you support my claim.

I will answer your questions on the condition you answer mine. If you forfeit the round, you void the answers.

1) Yes, I'd agree that I have not always existed.
2) No, I would not say that I was in a nonexistant state. Let's look at the sentence structure. "I" am a noun; I'm the object of the statement. "Nonexistent state" is what describes me. How can I be described when I don't exist? I can not. Therefore, you should reword your statement to "If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was an idea that you did not exist?" Therefore, the idea is the subject, and the idea is in existance and nonexistence is there to describe that idea of my nonexistence. I am part of the idea, but according to your fallacy, you can't say I exist because I'm part of something. I can't exist without that idea in nonreality. Going back in time to where I did not exist, NO ONE could say that I would exist, therefore, I didn't exist. If someone could say I would exist and I was just not existing at the moment, you would have to be God to know that, supporting my case.
3) No, because I had no state of reality. If I had a state of reality, I would have been a part of reality and existed in it. Since I did not exist in reality, I had no state of reality. So therefore, I could not exist. Something had to create me, a certain event to bring me into existence. I could make brownies from brownie mix. Brownies don't exist yet, but I can predict using my creation of measured time in relation to planetary rotation to the sun to PREDICT they will exist, but I can't know for sure. In twenty minutes, I should have my brownies....BAM! Power goes out. The brownie mix goes bad because it's 3 days until I get power back. Those brownies did not ever exist in nonexistence. I could predict it, but I can never know for fact because I'm not God. I can't make things happen without inciting other events to make it exist. Therefore, I am dependent upon those events to happen and I can't say they exist in nonexistance.

Your questions:

1) If something does not exist now, is it in a nonexistent state? No.
2) Are unicorns in a nonexistent state? No.
3) Is the idea existing that they're in a nonexistent state? Yes, the idea itself is.
4) Must the creation of that idea had to happen for the idea to exist? Yes.
5) If everything had a cause of existence, then is it logical to say everything has always existed without cause, without being an omni being? No.

God is the only thing that does not have creation. Everything else had creation. God is the cause of that creation.



Debate Round No. 4
Illegalcombatant

Con

In the previous round I asked Pro 3 simple questions in order to demonstrate that something begins to exist, comes after its non existence.

1) Would you agree that the you have not always existed ? Yes
2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ? Yes
3) Would you agree that this state of reality where you did not exist, preceded its existence ? Yes
I look forward to Pros reply.

In response to question 2 Pro said "2) No, I would not say that I was in a nonexistent state. Let's look at the sentence structure. "I" am a noun; I'm the object of the statement. "Nonexistent state" is what describes me. How can I be described when I don't exist? I can not. "

But notice here they deliberately reworded the question, in order to attack it on semantic grounds, when clearly the question says "2) If you did not always exist, would you agree that means their was a state of reality where you did not exist ? "

Even after trying to defeat this concept of non existence before existence, Pro says "You can only say that AFTER it's existence! You can not say it before! Creation must come first! (God created the universe)"

Notice Pro talks about something existing AFTER it exists, well why do you talk about After its existence, it seems to me Pro is suggesting that there was a "before", and in this "before" the thing they are referring to did not exist.

Even after playing this silly game of refuting me on that basis that we can't say that something is non existent what does Pro then and go say ? Pro says "Time had a point of nonexistent"

Pro didn't exist 500 years ago, When Pro began to exist, this came after their non existence (descriptively speaking) any adult can understand this concept.

Pro says "5) If everything had a cause of existence, then is it logical to say everything has always existed without cause, without being an omni being? No." Pro states that everything has a cause, then says, God didn't have a cause, outright contradiction.

Pro says "God is the only thing that does not have creation. Everything else had creation. God is the cause of that creation." No, everything but the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER has creation, if Pro can just make assertions, why can't we all just jump in on the act. See everything but the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER has creation.........oh that and CHUCK NORRIS.

Pro says "1) God existed before the universe
2) Therefore there was a time when the universe did not exist."

This is very problematic for Pro, cause Pro stated that their is no time with God, Pro had said "(God created the universe; time did not exist with God" if there is no time with God, God can't exist "before" anything now can he ?

At the start of this debate, my main argument was how the Kalam argument, claims that the universe began to exist and the problem that arise with this claim, I previously said.......

1) Something that begins to exist can't exist before it exists (this should be self evident)
2) Something that begins to exist can't have always existed.
3) Therefore something that begins to exist, did not exist in the past.

and

1) There was no "before" the universe
2) Therefore there has never being a time where the universe has not existed.
3) There for its impossible for the non existence of the universe to be the state of reality before the existence of the universe
4) Therefore the universe did not begin to exist.

The questions at this point is, have I shown good reason to object to the 2nd premise of the kalam argument that states "2)The universe began to exist."

Has my opponent being able to refute the reasons I gave for objecting to the 2nd premise ?

I ask a vote for Con.

I thank Pro for participating in this debate.
Itsallovernow

Pro

My opponent did not answer my questions. Therefore, his entire 5th round (centered around my answers to his question) are void and he should lose conduct on the basis of claiming my arguments are "(silly games)". Furthermore, I would like to state I didn't reword any one of his questions; I simply took it apart so that he could see the flaw in his logic.

My opponent does not seem to understand this logic: "Before my existance, I didn't exist. When I did not exist, there was no way to be certain I did not exist."

My opponent states "Pro states that everything has a cause, then says, God didn't have a cause, outright contradiction." I thought we were argueing the Kalam Cosmological Arguement? The position you gave me to defend is that on my side, God is real. On yours, he is not. We must prove which side is more logical. You can not attack God, for he is a part of this arguement and his existence is not the debate.

My opponent says everything but the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Chuck Norris has no creation. So, we can assume those two beings are God, because they are not mortal nor do they abide by the laws of nature, suiting the definition of GOD. Here my opponent has supported my case in a way that does not support his and he can not refute. Therefore, by this alone I should win this debate.

My opponent wants to say "if there is no time with God, God can't exist "before" anything now can he?" Yes, he can! Man created time. There was no time before man. Dinosaurs and everything ran amuck before us. Then we can into existance and created time to measure events. Time is a measurement, like feet or cubic yards. Cubic yards, a measurement, didn't exist before we made it! Time is nothing but an abstract idea. God didn't make time; we did. Therefore, time was not the beginning of the universe, it was GOD.

That is my foundation of this debate. God made the universe. God came before the universe. Two things must exist for it to base time on, hence my basement arguement. If God was the only thing existing, there is not time. Since God made the universe, we, as humans, can use our created thought of time to say he came before it. Before is not a direct measurement of time. Before, after, and during is a direct line of events. Time is the measurements between the two.

==CONCLUSION==

The Kalam Cosmological Arguement is the debate. Since there are to objects of the debate "God, or the Universe?", we are both obligated to prove which is more logical. Through the debate, I believe I have made my point apparent. I would now like to state the one fool-proof reason why I should win the debate

My opponent presented (a) God(s): Chuck Norris and the FLYING SPAGEHETTI MONSTER.

For these reasons and arguments above, I believe I have won the debate.

Take care, and VOTE PRO
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
"YOU ARE A TOY! You're an action figure! You are a child's plaything!" "You're a sad, strange little man."
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
l (
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Ahhhh but you see, Its not about winning the debate, its about winning the argument. As long as it has being shown that your argument is faulty, even using chuck norris, then I don't really care if you "win" the debate.

You will die, I will die, but the truth lives on MUHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Chuck Norris is a wanna-be. Besides, if you're not serious about an argument, why make it? If you do that in a real tournement, of course I'm going to use it.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
PS.........Chuck Norris doesn't obey the laws of logic, the laws of logic obey chuck Norris.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Pro actually used my joke assertions about chuck norris, as a proof for their side, I guess they missed the bit about how if they are allowed to make assertions so can I, then uses this as one of their main arguments to defend their side. If the best reason you got for defending your side is a chuck norris joke, I think your in trouble.
Posted by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
conduct: tie. No obvious Ad hominem or other unsportsmanlike behavior.
spelling and grammer: tie. Nothing jumped out as especially bad.
convincing arguments: Con. Pro's argument seemed disjointed.
reliable sources: Pro. Con could have pulled in a lot more sources than he bothered with.
Posted by warpedfx 6 years ago
warpedfx
god, being supposedly timeless, spaceless, omnipotent, omniscient mind, cannot be a creator of anything, since a timeless mind cannot think, which is a process that requires time.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Points:

Conduct - Me (for the "silly games" comment, demeaning my debate)
Spelling and Grammar - Me (many captialization issues, including FLYING...)
Arguments - Me (more logical and simpler to follow)
Reliable Sources - Me (my 2 sources were the only ones)
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Not an arguement, it's explination. Very well, though.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
IllegalcombatantItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Vote Placed by mecap 6 years ago
mecap
IllegalcombatantItsallovernowTied
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 
Vote Placed by daniel_t 6 years ago
daniel_t
IllegalcombatantItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
IllegalcombatantItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07