The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False
Debate Rounds (3)
For those that are going to say he existed in heaven then that argument is fraud as well because if God created heaven then where was did he exist before he made heaven if he is the first thing to exist?
Again in order for something to exist it first needs a plane of existence to exist in. Nothing can exist without a pre-existing plane.
Well what about the universe then how did begin to exist before any pre-existing plane?"
I'll get into that later.
What logical fallacy does it use?
How does the argument misunderstand the Big Bang?
You use that definition of "existence". For what reason should we use that definition? You say that God violates the definition of existence. But why should God be bound by a human made idea/definition of "existence"?
I hope you can clarify your claims for me! I pass it onto Pro!
As one video put it, it would be a lot more accurate to call it "The Everywhere Stretch". One of the most common misconceptions about the big Bang is that the entire universe was compressed into a single point from which it then expanded into the surrounding "nothingness". It is true that the observable universe used to be crammed into an infinitesimal space, but that space was not a single point, nor was the rest of the unknown or unobserved universe
also in that same bit of space.
The explanation for this is the magical power of infinity. Current data shows that the whole universe is at least 20 times larger than our observable universe, but that's at least. It could be infinitely large.
And if you have an infinite amount of space then you can scale space down, shrinking everything to minuscule proportions, and still have an infinite amount of space. This would mean that space doesn't need anything to expand into because it can expand into itself, and still have plenty of room.
Basically the Big Bang was a time long ago when the universe was a lot more squeezed together, and the observable universe was crammed into a very very small piece of that space.
Because the entire universe was so dense and hot everywhere, space-time was curved everywhere, and this curvature manifested itself as a rapid expansion of space throughout the universe, hence the "Everywhere Stretch"
Our current physical models of the universe are unable to explain, and predict what was happening before our observable universe started expanding. when it was super scaled down, however the question of what happened before the big bang isn't a good question because when the universe was incredible compressed, and everything was hot, and dense that our mathematical models of the universe breakdown so much that time doesn't even make sense. It's kind of like how the concept of north breaks down when your at the north pole. What's north of the north pole? You can only say that the rest of the world is south of the north pole.
Another possible explanation of how the universe began is maybe an earlier age of the universe ended when space contracted in on itself because expansion wasn't happening fast enough, and then started expanding again due to high pressurization and in our stage of the universe it happen to be able to expand fast enough so contraction is no longer a possibility.
The point is there are other explanations for the beginning of the universe, other than the Kalam argument which proposes to be the best and only possible explanation for the origin of the universe, that only God could have done it, and that's just incorrect.
For more information on this you can watch the video for yourself here
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2.The universe began to exist; Therefore:
3.The universe has a cause.
This is a deductive argument. In order for you to disprove it, you have to disprove one of its premises.
What you stated was a little confusing. You explained what you think the beginning of the universe is. I think you are trying to say that "the universe never began to exist", which if you could prove that, would disprove the 2ed premise.
There really isn't much for me to say. The only way to disprove the argument is to disprove one of the premises. So far, I haven't seen anything that disproves them. So, either you have to claim that everything that begins doesn't need a cause (that something can arbitrarily come from nothing), or that the universe has always existed forever (which goes against the 2ed law of thermodynamics).
The Kalam Argument rests on the supposed "fact" that the Universe began to exist, which is the 2nd premise, but it's not a fact. Little is known about the origin of the Universe so nothing is conclusive
The 2nd premise rests on an assumption not a fact, and as we all know you can't prove something to be factual by using an assumption, you can only use other facts to prove something to the true. Only facts prove other facts.
I didn't necessary explain the beginning of the Universe just the beginning of the expansion of the our observable universe. It is possible that the observable universe pre-existed before it's rapid expansion, as a compressed, hot, and dense space as part of an already infinite universe.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument stands unrefuted
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.