The Instigator
TheCommonMan
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
UndyingHarmony
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheCommonMan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 51863
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)

 

TheCommonMan

Con

The resolution of the debate is "The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God". Since I am con, I will argue that the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the Christian God beyond a shadow of a doubt. My opponent, who will be pro, must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of the Christian God. Here are the rules.

1. First round is acceptance only.
2. Second round is arguments only (no rebuttals).
3. Final three rounds are for any type of argument or rebuttal.
4. Burden of proof is only on pro, as he/she must prove their case beyond a doubt.
5. Any violation of these rules results in a loss of conduct point.

I wish my future opponent luck.
UndyingHarmony

Pro

I accept your challenge! (Acceptance)
Debate Round No. 1
TheCommonMan

Con

Hello, welcome to my debate.

So, let’s restate the resolution. The resolution is as follows: “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God”. Since I am con, I must coherently show how the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Before I get into any of my arguments, I will provide a basic summary of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The following is the basic Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument attempts to show that there is a God out there that created the universe and that the universe had a beginning that was started by a God. Here is the basic outline of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

1. Everything that exists/began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This cause is often times thought of to be a creator God.

Now that I have given the basic premise of what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, I would like to begin my argument.


Argument #1: Flaws in the Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does go as far as to logically show that the universe had a cause with the three steps. However, the argument becomes flawed after that. This argument makes the automatic assumption that the cause of the universe’s existence is a creator God. However, this is not necessarily the case. In order to establish that the cause of the universe is a creator God, the argument must go further than it already does. It doesn’t show why the idea of a creator God is the cause of the universe or why it is a more rational idea than other explanations of the universe’s beginning, such as the Big Bang Theory. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails to provide the proof of showing that a creator God exists.


Argument #2: No Connection to Christian God

Let’s reiterate that my opponent’s goal is to prove the existence of the Christian God specifically with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and nothing else. The Kalam Cosmological Argument only attempts to prove the existence of just a creator God. I’ve already debunked the argument itself, but forget that for a moment. Remember that even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument showed the existence of a creator God, it doesn’t talk about the existence of the Christian God. So, let’s map this out.

a. My opponent must prove the Christian God’s existence with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t prove, nor does it even talk about, the existence of the Christian God.
c. Therefore, my opponent can’t meet his burden of proof with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.


Conclusion:

I have found a flaw in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In addition, I have also made a point which cannot be refuted and shows that my opponent cannot win. I await my opponent’s next round argument.


Resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
UndyingHarmony

Pro

Thank you for your gentle argument in round 2. :) I've gathered all my time and conducted enough research to be able to make the argument interesting. I've spent almost 6 hours on this.
First,
Let us Analyze;
1.Everything that has a beginning has a cause
2.The universe had a beginning
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause

The first hypothesis seems obviously true as it is deeply rooted in the "metaphysical intuition" that something cannot come into being from nothing. right? To say that something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing I think is worse than magic. For at least in magic, you have the magician and maybe a hat (like Gandalf), but here you have nothing being caused by nothing, yet coming into existence. It seems absurd.

So you might be objecting, "Ah, so that means God would have to have a cause as well". Nope. Remember, the first hypothesis is: "Everything that has a beginning has a cause", God never had a beginning, thus needs no cause. we'll tackle that discussion later why God never had a beginning.

Now I will present two philosophical arguments and one empirical argument as to why the second premise is true, that the universe had a beginning. :)

1.An actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality.
2.A beginningless series of events is an actually infinite number of things.
3.Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality.

A distinction needs to be made here from things that are potentially infinite, and those that actually are. For example, a line of finite distance could potentially be subdivided infinitely. You can just keep on dividing parts in half forever, but you will never arrive at an actual "infiniteieth" division. Now the first premise declares, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist.

Scenario #1
If actual infinities could occur in reality, absurdities would occur. For instance, let's take a look at David Hilbert(German Mathematician) 's brain-child (an idea or plan produced by creative thought), appropriately dubbed, 'Hilbert's Hotel' hehe. Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms that are all occupied. A new guest arrives at the hotel wanting to check in, and the clerk says, "Why of course!" and shifts the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 to room 3, the person in room 3 to room 4 and so on... So that means room 1 has become vacant and the guest gladly checks in.

But now let's suppose that an infinite number of the new guests arrive to this fully occupied hotel asking for rooms to stay in. The clerk says, "Of course, we can fit you in", and proceeds to move the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 into room 4, the person in room 3 into room 6, and so on (by moving the existing guests to a room that is double their old room number). We see that now all the odd-numbered rooms become free (doubling of any number becomes even) and the infinite number of guests happily move into their rooms. Yet all the rooms were occupied before the guests arrived.

ANALYSIS:
We see that the hotel clerk's actions are only possible if the hotel is a potential infinite, such that new rooms are created to absorb the influx of guests. For if the hotel has an actually infinite number of rooms and all the rooms are full, then there is no more room. Therefore, an actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality. A beginningless universe has an infinite number of past events, therefore, the universe has a beginning (which is seen in number two in the classical Argument of the Kalam cosmological Argument; the universe had a beginning.)

Now the second philosophical argument I will present does not deny that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. However it argues that a collection of an infinite number of things cannot be formed by successive addition. The argument can be stated as follows:

1.The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.A collection formed by successive addition can never reach an actual infinite.
3.Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite. :)

The first premise is obvious. If the universe never had a beginning then in order for us to have arrived at today, temporal existence has had to traverse an infinite number of past events, one event after another, yes? However before the present event could occur, the event immediately prior would have to occur, but before that one could occur, the event prior to that one has to occur, and so on ad infinitum (mindfuq right?). So as one gets driven back and back into the infinite past, no event could ever occur as they are all dependent on a prior event. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless(mindfuq again), the present event could have never occurred, which is.... ridiculous! But the present has occurred so thus there must have been an independent cause at the beginning, also known as a first cause. Being the first cause, it therefore must be uncaused (meaning it can have no beginning, it must always be. Which is God :] ).

The second premise can also be described as the impossibility of counting to infinity. For if we count each new element that we add to a collection, we can always add one more. Therefore, one can have a potential infinity, but can never reach an actual infinity.

Someone might say that while it is impossible for a collection to reach an infinite number of items by having a beginning and adding members one by one, an infinite could be formed by never beginning but having an ending point. However, this view seems equally absurd, for if you cannot count to infinity, why would you be able to count down from infinity? That would be reeeaaallyyyyy absurd..

Scenario #2
Imagine if someone counted down from infinity one number per day, and they finally finished counting today. The question I want to ask is, why did they only finish counting down today? Why not yesterday, or the day before, or a year ago? For since the same amount of time would have had elapsed on any of those other days as today, namely an infinite amount of days. In fact, if we look back at any day in past, we should see the person will have already finished, which is ridiculous.

Since an actually infinite number of things cannot be reached by successive addition, it shows that there are not an infinite number of past events, meaning the universe had a beginning and there must be a first cause.

Now I will turn to a discussion regarding the empirical proof for the second premise. The second law of thermodynamics states that anything left to itself will tend towards more disorder/entropy. Since I know the universe is a closed system, the amount of entropy in the universe will be constantly increasing. So therefore, if the universe was infinite in age by never having a beginning, the amount of entropy in the universe would be an infinite amount. The universe should be at complete equilibrium with uniformity everywhere, and with absolutely nothing occurring. Is the universe in such a state today? haha! of course not (obviously). Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Now that we have firmly established that the two premises in the Kalam Cosmological argument are more reasonably true than false, the conclusion necessarily follows that the universe has a cause. The next step is to discover, what can we know about this cause? Well, obviously the cause must be outside both space and time, so thus immaterial and timeless. If the cause is timeless then the cause must also be changeless, as changes can only happen within time, right? A changeless being can never change, so that is another reason why God cannot have a beginning.

But not only can we know that the cause of the universe is "transcendent", but I would contend that it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect, such as the universe? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the first event are present from eternity then the effect should actually exist from eternity as well, that is to say, the universe should be eternal. But as we've seen, that is impossible. The only way for a timeless cause to create an effect in time is if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the universe in time. So not only are we brought to a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful cause, but also to a personal Creator. Can you Imagine how Great our God is? That is, if you choose to believe in him. If not, I respect that.

Resources:
Father.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
and all the other vids relating to it.

I await your argument to my argument. :)
Debate Round No. 2
TheCommonMan

Con

I'm just going to simply extend all arguments, and here's why. My opponent does a great job of defending the three basic steps in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, I never questioned the merit of the first three steps. I questioned the idea that the cause of the universe is a Creator God. I also brought up another potential cause of the beginning of the universe, which is the Big Bang Theory. My opponent briefly talks about the idea that the cause of the universe is a Creator God, but doesn't debunk other ideas such as the Big Bang Theory.

Furthermore, the resolution of the debate is "The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God". My opponent has only attempted to prove the existence of A GOD. He must prove the existence of the Christian God using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Now, let's revisit a point that I mad in the last round.

"a. My opponent must prove the Christian God’s existence with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t prove, nor does it even talk about, the existence of the Christian God.
c. Therefore, my opponent can’t meet his burden of proof with the Kalam Cosmological Argument."

So, I have met my objective that states that the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't in any way fully prove the existence of the Christian God. Since my opponent must use this argument to prove the existence of the Christian God, he can't possibly meet his burden of proof. It's as simple as this; I have met my objective and my opponent cannot meet his. I appreciate the merit of my opponent's argument, as he did a good job of defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, he has not met his objective.

UndyingHarmony

Pro

UndyingHarmony forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheCommonMan

Con

Extend all arguments.
UndyingHarmony

Pro

UndyingHarmony forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheCommonMan

Con

Extend all arguments.
UndyingHarmony

Pro

UndyingHarmony forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The only other problem with the Cosmological argument apart from it being a "Special Pleading" fallacy, is that "Everything Must Have A Cause" Except God.
Such an Exemption is indeed Irrational, there is no Logical reason why God should be Exempt from being Created.
Claiming God is outside of time and space, means that humans cannot communicate with God, nor God With Humans, because to communicate with Humans or for Humans to know God, means God must be Inside Time and our space.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
There is too much against the Biblical, Christian god that can be brought into the debate, as the Cosmological argument requires the God to fit Anselm's concept of "The Greatest Entity That Can Be Thought Of" Which the Bible God is definitely not, by it's own admission in the Bible when it describes itself as "A Jealous God".
It has too many faults to be considered the "Greatest Possible Being".

If it was just left open and simply considered as the "Greatest Possible Being" without being labelled a Being with obvious faults, such as the Omni-Malevolent Bible God, then it could be argued more reasonably and with more conviction.
Con only needs to bring into question the rampant stupidity of the Bible God to destroy Pro's chances of making a reasonable argument.
That was my point.
Posted by Pitbull15 2 years ago
Pitbull15
@Sagey: Only if it's about a particular god. Which it shouldn't be.

The Kalam was intended to prove the existence of any supernatural intelligence creating the universe. Now the question of which one deserves its own debate and would be debated presuming there was a god to begin with.

Take a look at zmikecuber's and my debates with the Kalam. It's all in how it's presented.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Wish William Lane Craig had taken the Pro position, even he would not have much of a Chance!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LOL, Not an easy task for UndyingHarmony.

Because the title has specified a particular God, it is easily defeated by reason and logic.
Thousands have done this in the past and their efforts are all over the Internet.

There are thousands of sources that completely destroy the Kalam Cosmological Argument and it is only harder to destroy if they don't specify a particular God as has been done here to Pro's Detriment.

Pro would be in a better position of the God was unspecified.

OUCH!

I'm batting for Pro, because the chips are squarely stacked against Pro.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
Sswdwm
UndyingHarmony.... you are a fool.
Posted by TheCommonMan 2 years ago
TheCommonMan
Well, I guess someone accepted my debate without any of the changes. Good luck to my opponent!
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
Just that the KCA proves the existence of a creator. Also, not the amount of burden you have set... I mean you can always just claim "well you haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt". It's pretty hard to be 100% certain of anything.

And I'd still have to think about it...
Posted by TheCommonMan 2 years ago
TheCommonMan
@zmikecuber

Well, it looks like you are the only person at this point that is interested in debating this. What specific modifications would you like?
Posted by zmikecuber 2 years ago
zmikecuber
The resolution COULD be...

The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of Unicorns
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
TheCommonManUndyingHarmonyTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to prove point 3, yet even stumbled in trying to claim points 1 & 2, the use of the Hotel analogy to demonstrate infinity cannot exist was highly Irrational, to say the least. There is an infinite number of points in any line, thus infinity does exist. There is no rational concept that can truly deny an infinite number of past events in the Cosmos, same as there may be an infinite number of universes. Conduct against Pro for the Forfeit, Pro could have made a more rational argument and failed to do so. Though Con did stack the cards against Pro with the Title of the debate: Con was just gutsy to take up the challenge in the first place. Even William Lane Craig would have shunned that Title.