The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KRFournier
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument can be logically refuted, using the same logic as the argument itelf

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
KRFournier
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,735 times Debate No: 21285
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

Pro will argue that there are arguments using the same logicical format as the Kalam Cosmological Argument that adequately refute it.

Con will argue that the Kalam Cosmological Argument cannot be logically refutted using the same type of logic, and that the KCA stands as absolute logical truth.

First round for acceptance.
KRFournier

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Classical argument


P1: Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;

P2: The universe has a beginning of its existence;
P3: The universe has a cause of its existence.
P4: Since no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin
of the universe, the cause must be personal (explanation is given in terms of a personal agent)



William Lane Craig's reformulated argument

P1: Whatever begins to exist must have an external cause.

P2: The universe began to exist.
P3: Therefore, the universe must have an external cause.
P4: This cause is the God of Classical Theism, and is a personal being, because He chose to create the universe.
Both arguments attempt to provide logical evidence of a personal creator, either argument can be logically refuted
using the same logical formula that the argument itself provides.


My first refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1: A cause = A force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time
P2: Nature, matter and time did not exist until after the universe began to exist
P3: For a cause of the beginning of the universe to be possible, the properties which make a cause possible must
have been present "before" the universe began to exist

P4: The properties needed that make a cause possible did not exist "before" the universe began to exist
(there is no proof that a "before" the universe is even possible)

P5: The universe's beginning had no cause, cause and effect is only something that occurs once the universe
already exists.

P6: If nothing caused the universe to exist, then a personal creator of the universe does not exist
P7: A personal God does not exist

Explanation:

Based on observation of the universe every cause is a force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter
that precedes it's effect in time. For example, if someone asked "what caused that book to fall over?", I could
respond with "my arm moved and knocked it off the table". Now the arm moving would be a re-arangement of
matter, and it would have to precede the effect in time. Another example would be if an asteroid was pulled into
Earth's atmosphere and someone asked "what is causing that?", I could respond with "gravity". Now gravity is
a force of nature acting on matter (the asteroid). Basically, all examples of causes are either a force of nature
that acts on matter, or a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time. There is no logical reason
to think that a cause can exist without a force or nature, matter, and time.


Based on The Big Bang Theory (the same theory people who advocate The Kalam Cosmological Argument
use to support the universe had a beginning in the first place), the forces of nature like gravity,
matter and not even time existed until after The Big Bang.
Since all observation concludes that we need these 3 things for causes to exist, then the universe's
beginning had no initial cause. If there was no cause there can be no personal cause, therefore, no personal God.



My second refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument
(This is refutation argument was made famous by Quentin Smith in 1992)


P1: The Big Bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe
P2: The earliest state of the universe is inanimate
P3: No law governs the big bang singularity, so consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration
of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.

P4: A personal God would ensure the singularity contained properties which would guarantee that it involved
into an animate universe

P5: A personal God did not create the singularity.
P6. A personal God does not exist

Explanation:

Based on The Big Bang Theory, there was no guarantee that the universe would turn out in a way that would
support life and a personal God would have made sure it did. A personal God did not create the universe and
therefore, does not exist.


My third refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

P1: At the sub-atomic level, virtual particles "begin to exist" uncaused

P2: We know these fluctuations are uncaused, because of the Bell's Theorem which tells us that there are
no hidden variables causing them

P3: The universe was in a hot dense state smaller than a proton 13.7 billion years ago, if this hot dense state
could be measured, it would be at the sub-atomic level

P4: Since things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused, there is no reason to believe the universe's existence
had a cause

P5: There is no reason to believe a personal God created the universe
P6: There is no reason to believe a personal God exists

Explanation:

Quantum Mechanics tells us that things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused all the time
(as explained by Bell's Inequalities). If the state the universe was in 13.7 billion years ago could be measured
it would be at the sub-atomic level, therefore it is more likely that the universe was uncaused rather than caused.
If the universe was uncaused, then there could be no personal creator (God) which existed or exists.


Conclusion:

I have logically refutted the Kalam Cosmological Argument using the same logical formula as the argument itself
using 3 separate arguments (only 1 of these arguments needed to be presented for me to have met my burden).

Sources:


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.infidels.org...
[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
KRFournier

Con

Introduction

My opponent intends to use the same logical format as the Kalām Cosmological Argument1 (KCA) to refute its conclusion. By "same logical format," my opponent means to use what we know thus far in the natural universe to inductively conclude that a personal creator does not exist. Looking at his three arguments so far, I think's it fair to say these three arguments do indeed follow the same general format as KCA. Thus, we need only to examine each one to see if they are logically sound.

For my rebuttal, I will copy & paste only those premises I find invalid for the benefit of the readers, followed by my reasons for my contention.

Argument 1

P1: A cause = A force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's [sic] effect in time

P1 commits the fallacy of redefinition. A cause is a "producer of an effect, result, or consequence."2 Pro's definition is rather convenient, since built into it is the notion that a cause must be natural. It will become apparent that this leads to question begging.

P3: For a cause of the beginning of the universe to be possible, the properties which make a cause possible must have been present "before" the universe began to exist

This is only true based on Pro's arbitrary and non-scholarly definition of a cause. If we take cause at its more common meaning, then P3 is necessarily false because the cause could have other properties such as it being supernatural.

P4: The properties needed that make a cause possible did not exist "before" the universe began to exist (there is no proof that a "before" the universe is even possible)

This entire argument is meant to prove that there is no personal creator, but P4's supporting evidence is that there's no proof anything existing before the universe which would include a personal creator? Isn't that what the debate is about? This is clearly circular reasoning.

P5: The universe's beginning had no cause, cause and effect is only something that occurs once the universe already exists.

Again, this is based on Pro's bias definition of a cause.

Since P1, P3, P4 and P5 are false, conclusions P6 and P7 have not been proven true.

Argument 2

P3: No law governs the big bang singularity, so consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.

The singularity is the result of "extrapolating the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity,"3 which "yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past." We call this the singularity, and it "signals the breakdown of general relativity."

It is disingenuous to say that no law governs the singularity, for such a statement implies that he have positive knowledge that nothing governs the singularity when in fact the opposite is true. The singularity is the product of known laws whose variables have reached their limits, i.e., it is the name given to what we don't know. It's not that we know there is no law, it's that we don't know there is a law, and that's an important difference since arguing from a lack of knowledge commits the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Since P3 is false, conclusions P5 and P6 have not been proven true.

Argument 3

P1: At the sub-atomic level, virtual particles "begin to exist" uncaused
P2: We know these fluctuations are uncaused, because of the Bell's Theorem which tells us that there are no hidden variables causing them

Both of these premises ought to be considered one premise. P2 is actually support for P1, so I'll rebut both of these simultaneously.

P2 is based on a faulty application of Bell's Theorem4. A proper look at Bell's Theorem actually disproves P1. Bell's theorem states that "the predictions of quantum theory (for measurements of spin on particles prepared in the singlet state) cannot be accounted for by any local theory." The proof of this theory is a two-part proof combining the EPR argument with Bell's Inequalities. Bell himself defined locality as "The direct causes (and effects) of events are near by, and even the indirect causes (and effects) are no further away than permitted by the velocity of light."

Bell is proving that there exists a "contradiction between the empirical predictions of quantum theory and the assumption of locality." All his theory proves is that the assumptions under relativity don't necessarily hold at the quantum level. There is nothing whatsoever about this theory proves that quantum fluctuations are not caused.

P4: Since things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused, there is no reason to believe the universe's existence had a cause

P4 commits the fallacy of equivocation. Notice how he uses sub-atomic "things" in this premise when he used sub-atomic "particles" in P1. The hot dense state of the universe surely cannot be assumed to behave exactly as a sub-atomic particle simply because of its size. Calling it sub-atomic doesn't make it anywhere close to the same thing as a sub-atomic particle.

Since P2 and P4 are false, conclusions P5 and P6 have not been proven true.

Conclusion

Pro has yet to satisfy his burden for all three of his arguments. Unless he can account for the errors in his premises or refute my contentions, the resolution remains negated.

Thank you.

Sources

  1. http://plato.stanford.edu...
  2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
  4. http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Pro


Refuting my opponents arguments:

"P1 commits the fallacy of redefinition. A cause is a "producer of an effect, result, or consequence."2 Pro's definition is rather convenient, since built into it is the notion that a cause must be natural. It will become apparent that this leads to question begging."

I can see where my opponent may have got the impression that I'm redefining what a cause is, however I'm simply naming the properties that all known causes have and therefore only scientifically defining it. Since the Kalam Cosmological Argument is basing the contention "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" on what is observed in the universe, then it's only fair and logical for me to base the contention "a cause is force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time" based on what is observed in the universe.

If my contention is illogical then the contention "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is illogical, and therefore I still refutted the Kalam Cosmological Argument.


"This is only true based on Pro's arbitrary and non-scholarly definition of a cause. If we take cause at its more common meaning, then P3 is necessarily false because the cause could have other properties such as it being supernatural."

My apponent is committing the fallacy of assuming that a cause can be possible without a force of nature, matter and/ or time. There are no examples of a cause which are not a force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time, so therefore it's not logical to jump to the conclusion that this new radical type of causation is possible without evidence.

Once more I'm basing this assumption on what is observed in the universe, just like the assumption "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is based on what is observed in the universe.

If my opponent claims that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is logical then it's only logical that my contention (P1) is as well because it's based on the same thing: Observation within the universe

"P4's supporting evidence is that there's no proof anything existing before the universe which would include a personal creator? Isn't that what the debate is about? This is clearly circular reasoning."

I'm not comprehending my opponent's argument here...

I was stating that since all examples of causes involve a force of nature, matter and/or time, and these things didn't exist before the universe existed, therefore there is no logical reason to believe in a cause of the universe. I also stated that there is no evidence that a "before" is even possible, if this is the case then there definitely can be no God, therefore no personal creator. This is not circular reasoning.

"Again, this is based on Pro's bias definition of a cause."

It's not a bias definition, it's the truth until refuted. All observations of the universe conclude that a cause is a force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time. I'm not changing the definition, I'm just stating things that all causes have in common. Con has not presented any evidence which refutes this contention other than I am changing the definition. The dictionary version of cause still stands in this debate, but that doesn't change my contention because my contention is true based on all observation of the universe.

"Since P1, P3, P4 and P5 are false, conclusions P6 and P7 have not been proven true."

My opponent has not provided valid argument for my contentions being false:


Reasoning:


My opponent has not provided any evidence that a cause is possible without it being a force of nature acting on matter/ a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time. He simply accused me of redefining "cause" but did not actually refute the contention. Therefore my argument still stands logically unrefuted.

Re-cap:

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is based on observation of the universe, so is my contention of what scientifically constitutes a cause so if my contention is false then so is "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and either way, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been logically refuted.

"It's not that we knowthere is no law, it's that we don't know there is a law, and that's an important difference since arguing from a lack of knowledge commits the argument from ignorance fallacy."

All I'm claiming is that according to The Big Bang theory, the singularity is not governed by any laws (as confirmed by my sources). If you do not believe that the singularity was not governed by any laws then you do not believe The Big Bang is true, therefore, the "the universe began to exist" contention of the Kalam Cosmological Argument would not have anything to back it up either. Either way, I have logically refuted The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

"the hot dense state of the universe surely cannot be assumed to behave exactly as a sub-atomic particle simply because of its size."

I never claimed it had to behave the exact same way, I just said it's more likely to behave in the way sub-atomic particles would because they are on the same playing field as far as scale is concerned.

Continuing my case:

Additional Argument


P1: Cause and effect is only something observed
within the universe after it already exists

P2: Causes are themselves effects, and therefore logically require a cause
P3: P2 indicates infinite regress, but cause and effect relationships cannot go back forever because the universe is 13.7 billion years old
P4: If we follow all cause and effect relationships back in time they stop at t=0
P5: Causes stop at the beginning of the universe
P6: There are no ways for a cause to exist before t=0 (especially considering you need forces of nature, matter and time for causes to exist according to all observation of the universe)
P7: If there was no cause of the universe, then a personal God couldn't have caused the universe to exist
P8: A personal God does not exist


Conclusion:

1) My logic is not absolute, it is simply logical based on what we observe within the universe. If what is observed within the universe is not valid for an argument, then the Kalam Cosmological Argument cannot be valid because it's contentions are based on what is observed within the universe.

Either:

a) My contentions are true, and therefore logically refutes the Kalam Cosmological Argument

or

b) My contentions are not true, and therefore making the Kalam Cosmological Arguments invalid because both sets of contentions are based on what is observed within the universe.

a) or b) refutes the Kalam Cosmological Argument logically using the same logic as the argument itself, therefore I believe I have the upper hand in this debate.


2) My opponent has not properly refuted my contentions and only implied that I was changing definitions, while not actually refuting the properties that I claimed all known causes have. Con also made many assertions which contradict many premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument itself. If certain contentions of mine are false then so are the ones that the Kalam Cosmoloigcal Argument makes because they are both based on observation within the universe. Either way I have shown that I can logically refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument using the same logical format as the Kalam Cosmological Argument itself.


Sources:

All sources are included in my first round, I simply used logical arguments in this round to defend my position.





KRFournier

Con

Introduction

I appreciate my opponent's quick turnaround in this debate. I hope the readers enjoyed our interchange.

Argument 1

P1: A cause = A force of nature that acts on matter/ re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's [sic] effect in time

I would be amiable to Pro's description of causation if it didn't include force of nature. The reason is that he's injecting the conclusion into the premise. This is not equivalent to what KCA does when asserting the premise "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Note how KCA's premise says nothing about the cause being natural or supernatural. KCA's position on cause is neutral; it makes no assumptions about the cause. Sure, it can be said that all observed causes are natural, but that doesn't suddenly mean we should define cause in such a way. To do so is premature.

P3: For a cause of the beginning of the universe to be possible, the properties which make a cause possible must have been present "before" the universe began to exist

Pro says it is a greater leap to assert that a non-natural cause is even possible. Of course it's a great leap when you've already defined a cause as only natural. Pro has gone from mere observation to full elimination of any and all supernatural explanations. This is what I meant when contending P4. His argument is not leading to a natural-only conclusion; it's assuming it from the beginning.

P4: The properties needed that make a cause possible did not exist "before" the universe began to exist (there is no proof that a "before" the universe is even possible)

Read this premise carefully. It says there is no proof that a "before" is even possible. He is arguing from a lack of evidence here to assert that nothing existed prior to the universe to cause it during an argument meant to prove that nothing existed prior to the universe to cause it. That's circular reasoning. Argument 1 is supposed to prove the very thing that P4 relies upon.

Pro's argument enhances the meaning of cause and then commits to that enhanced definition for the remainder of the argument. As a result, we have an argument that is self-fulfilling. It's bound lead to the conclusion because the conclusion is already in the first premise, i.e., circular reasoning.

Since P1, P3, P4, and P5 are false, conclusions P6 and P7 have not been proven true.

Argument 2

P3: No law governs the big bang singularity, so consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.

Pro said his sources confirmed that there is no law governing the singularity. I searched both articles and could find no positive confirmation that no such law exists. However, both articles speak about how general relativity breaks down at the singularity. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Therefore, this premise is making a huge assumption in stating there is absolutely no law governing the singularity.

He says that if I reject the notion that no laws govern the singularity then I'm rejecting the idea of the Big Bang altogether. Again, I read the articles and that is simply an unfounded assertion. It is logically compatible to allow for at least the possibility of an unknown law governing the singularity than to just conclude there is no law whatsoever based on a lack of evidence, especially when such assumptions are being used to determine the nature of God's existence.

Since P3 is false, conclusions P5 and P6 have not been proven true.

Argument 3

P1: At the sub-atomic level, virtual particles "begin to exist" uncaused
P2: We know these fluctuations are uncaused, because of the Bell's Theorem which tells us that there are no hidden variables causing them

Pro did not respond to my contentions that he misused Bell's Theorem in support of these premises, so I extend them to this round.

P4: Since things occur at the sub-atomic level uncaused, there is no reason to believe the universe's existence had a cause

Pro claims it's more reasonable to believe this premise than not to believe it despite the fact that a sub-atomic thing containing all energy and mass is drastically different from a sub-atomic particle with virtually no mass swimming in a pocket of energy. I assert that it requires the utter abandonment of reason to assert that these would behave the same way without more evidence to support it.

Since P2 and P4 are false, conclusions P5 and P6 have not been proven true.

Argument 4

P5: Causes stop at the beginning of the universe

Correction: natural causes stop at the beginning of the universe. This is the only valid conclusion that can be made from P1 through P4. Since the argument is trying to prove there are no supernatural causes, then this generalized claim cannot be used. Just like Argument 1, this is circular reasoning.

P6: There are no ways for a cause to exist before t=0 (especially considering you need forces of nature, matter and time for causes to exist according to all observation of the universe)

Argument 4 is now borrowing from the premises of Argument 1. Premises P1 through P5 make no mention of forces of nature, yet again, Pro insists this is the case. Argument 4, therefore, is just Argument 1 in different clothes. Yet again, it suffers from using its intended conclusion within the premises.

Since P5 and P6 are false, conclusions P7 and P8 have not been proven true.

Conclusion

My opponent concludes his last round by reiterating that if his observations about causes are invalid, then the same goes for KCA and he wins either way. That is just wishful thinking on his part. KCA does use natural observations, but it does not needlessly confine those observations to reach only natural conclusions. Pro is the one that insists round after round that everything must be put into the box of naturalism without warrant.

  • Both KCA and Pro are observing that all effects in our universe are caused.
  • Both KCA and Pro reach a first cause scenario.
  • KCA simply follows the evidence. Since all things in the universe are caused, then there must be a cause of the universe. This is a parsimonious conclusion. It requires the least amount of assumption.
  • Pro, on the other hand, does not follow the evidence. He insists, one way or the other, that the causes come to a halt, and does so by injecting a needless assumption that "if there can't be a natural cause, then there isn't one."

These are the two approaches before the voters. The question becomes, are KCA and Pro's argument irrevocably linked such that if Pro fails KCA fails also? If you truly are convinced the answer is yes, then you should vote Pro. However, even if you think KCA is not a good argument, if you can agree with me that Pro's arguments make their own fallacies wholly apart from KCA, then Pro has not met his burden and you are justified in voting Con.

Thank you.

Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by JackBlack 3 years ago
JackBlack
I dislike how the debate was set up.
For con to win he just needs to show that Pro is wrong and the KCA can't be refuted using the same form as the KCA, not also show that the KCA is true as requested.

I disagree with Con's idea of a cause.
If you want to use causes as observed in nature all you have is natural causes. This means that P1 of KCA can be stated as "Everything that has a beginning has a natural cause as Pro was claiming these causes were.

If you were to use the same form as KCA as I understand it, i.e. use what is observed to conclude things about things in general, then we would conclude that a cause is natural as stated in P1 of Argument 1.
Suggesting that a cause could be supernatural when no such cause has ever been observed would be equivalent to suggesting that something could have a beginning without being caused, (if you assume that has never been observed). This means the KCA is refuted using the same "form".

If the voting period was open I would vote for Pro, even though his argument 2 is horribly wrong and argument 3 is flawed.
Posted by Alarbi 4 years ago
Alarbi
I must admit that you should win in this debate if we philosophize in a limited materialistic frame, in which even the ‘immaterial idea' 1+1=2 is not allowed or simply cannot possibly exist. I believe I can understand you perfectly well. This however requires that we or rather you can prove at least two things:
1) What an atom (origin of all matter) is, backed by experimental production of all elements from which it is constituted and explain why you can give to some elements a charge while you left others without, explain why charges and gravity are there and please back them up by experimental production of charges, gravity and other unknown proprieties you can produce at will with the possibility to switch them on and off or invert them! We will finance you all laboratories you want. This will bring you and us a ton of Nobel prizes! To explain materially, only the classical subatomic elements, international research became so rich mathematically and so poor in knowledge that Bohr model of 1913 is still valid with no hope of progress as far as CERN projects are concerned!
2) Explain and prove "as from which atomic or molecular COMPLEXITY" an organic cell can be termed intelligent and as from which molecular COMPLEXITY an organism has the capacity to think and talk and imagine correctly that 1+1=2 etc and please tell us why this happened materially. This will give you the possibility to bring dead bodies that stopped living due a simple lack of oxygen for instance, and since you have an intact organism, you can force it with your correct knowledge of matter to resume life.
As long as that is not done, what you believe is material is in fact incredibly INCOMPLETE, it is also only an idea similar to your opponent ideas. A fair vote to me should be 0-0.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
3 voters = Christian, Christian, Christian.....Anyway, Con never presented any argument that refuted my contention that a cause is a force of nature which acts on matter/ a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect. All he did was accuse me of trying to change the definition, and as I explained in the comments below this argument is irrelevant because it still doesn't discredit my contention.

Re-Hashed explanation:

If I said "a star is a body in space where nuclear reactions take place and hydrogen fuses with helium", would that be wrong simply because I didn't define it like it is in the dictionary?

"star/stär/
Noun:
A fixed luminous point in the night sky that is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun."

Of course it wouldn't be wrong, a star IS a body in space where nuclear reactions take place where helium fuses with hydrogen regardless of the definition.

The same concept can be applied to causes, a cause IS a force of nature which acts on matter/ a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time regardless of the definition. My opponent never presented an argument to challenge this, because he can't, there are NO examples of a cause that wasn't a force of nature which acts on matter/ a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time.

I'm not the sore loser type and my opponent is a good debater, I just wished my contention was refuted...Claiming that I'm trying to change a definition in no way shape or form discredits the truth behind what I'm saying. Either way, it was a good debate.

Congrats to Con.
Posted by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
@Alarbi, I agree with you wholeheartedly
Posted by Alarbi 4 years ago
Alarbi
I hope that PRO has seen his mistakes. Many of the assertions are clearly incomplete and did not stand the test. In front of the solid arguments brought by CON, I would like to see how PRO counter attacks, it can take an interesting turn. In such a situation I would leave, in front of the unknown, all doors open for further constructive suggestions and refuse to use vague assumptions such as "if there can't be a natural cause, then there isn't one". It is not possible to prove that LIFE on earth started naturally, that it started "super-naturally" is closer to the reality simply because inside the cell lodge the most perfect, efficient, complex and puzzling program in the universe and if you cannot point to the Programmer with your finger it is not evidence of His inexistence. It is possible to prove mathematically that the order magnitude inside a cell cannot be generated by chance since it lies far away behind the mathematical definition of zero probability (84 zeros after the one). Recently the Histone genes H3 and H4 stood apart from the rest and were termed sacred! refusing to be tinkered with. They have a "zero" effective mutation rate in humans. You share almost the exact same code with anything from grass to mouse or elephant! Think seriously about it, it cannot happen naturally, it needs a Supper Engineer and Programmer called God!
Posted by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
It was a good interchange. It seems like it's harder to get a broader sampling of votes these days on DDO. All my debates are getting only 1 or 2 votes.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
PS. Respect to my opponent for an enjoyable debate
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
The first voter was pretty biased I must say, I never changed the definition of cause I just created a valid scientific definition with more specific properties...For example if I said "a star is a body in space where nuclear reactions take place and hydrogen fuses with helium", would that be wrong simply because I didn't define it like it is in the dictionary?

"star/stär/
Noun:
A fixed luminous point in the night sky that is a large, remote incandescent body like the sun."

Of course it wouldn't be wrong, a star is a body in space where nuclear reactions take place where helium fuses with hydrogen regardless of the definition.

The same concept can be applied to causes, a cause is a force of nature which acts on matter/ a re-arrangement of matter that precedes it's effect in time regardless of the definition.

Also, regardless of Bells Theorem if even 1 of my 4 arguments was correct then I met my burden. I hope the next voter is fair.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by MikeyMike 4 years ago
MikeyMike
Rational_Thinker9119KRFournierTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won this debate by pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that KCA never states that "cause" must be a natural force.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Rational_Thinker9119KRFournierTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con mainly won this debate because he showed that Pro repeatedly begged the question in his use of the term "cause.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 5 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Rational_Thinker9119KRFournierTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Interesting debate for sure. Pro's definition of cause was arbitrary, as Con revealed. Con pointed out the many fallacies in Con's argument. Argument from ignorance, circular reasoning, etc. etc. Sources to Con for showing how Bell's theorem didn't support Pro's case at all.