The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is False

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 78415
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




The Kalam Cosmological Argument is false primary because of it's misunderstanding of The Big Bang, and logical fallacies which includes the idea that God existed when time, and space didn't exist (which is a scientific misconception by the way, but we'll get to that later. However we'll accept it for the sake of argument). This would violate the definition of existence itself which is something that is bound by the state of physical laws, and space and time. The way we tell if something exists is if it is detectable. In other words if it leaves a mark on the universe. That's how scientists found out that dark matter, and dark energy existed. In order for something to exist it needs a plane of existence, or a dimension of some sort to exist in. Without one nothing can exist. In our case it's the three-dimensional universe we find ourselves in.
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.


Your are making the claim that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. I have a few questions about the claims you made.

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!
Debate Round No. 1


I will begin by saying that The Big Bang is a horrible name for the current scientific theory concerning the origin of our observable universe.
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


Ok, I think I know what you are saying. Now before I do anything else, I want to show what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is.

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).
Debate Round No. 2


I'm disproving the misconception that the Universe began to exist. That actually hasn't been proved. All that has been proved is the the observable Universe began to expand, and we can date this back to about 14 billion years ago. This does not mean the Universe began to exist, It just means the universe began to expand
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.


You held the burden of proof in showing that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. All you did was appeal to ignorance. That in no way disproves it. You claim that the universe does not require a cause. But you did not give proof for your claim. No proof or reason was given that the universe "did not become to exist". Your only defense was that it is possible. But no reason was given for this possibility.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument stands unrefuted
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by iqpiblog 2 years ago
it can be proven that the universe doesnt have a cause

existence is the only occurrence that possesses the attribute of not having an alternative

anything that causes something cannot be the same as the occurence it causes

existence wasnt caused by anything

it always was and will be
Posted by iqpiblog 2 years ago
the universe didnt begin

it exists

non existence is an impossibility

existence is not dependant on non existence
Posted by hldemi 2 years ago
I think Calam is much weaker in premise one. Its so much bigger assumption that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" then premise two that says that universe began to exist. But overall the only proof Pro needs is to say that we cannot know that some premise is true. And thats it. He would need to prove premises wrong only if they were established by proofs. Since they were asserted as true they can be asserted as false under the fact that we do not know them to be true.

Take for example the premise one : "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

How so ? This premise is based upon the assumption that since anything we observe to begin to exist has a cause, everything (the whole physical reality ) must have a cause. This is the fallacy of composition. If every sheep has a mother the whole flock needs to have a mother. Which is false.
Everything we observe to begin to exist is creatio ex materia which means what it was created by effecting the material to create something new. We never observed creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) to conclude anything.

Premise one is much weaker.
Posted by elthagreat 2 years ago
I never claimed the the Universe does not require a cause, and I did provide proof, and reason that supported the idea that the Universe did not began to exist in round 2, by pointing to the misconception about the Big Bang being the beginning of the Universe when in actuality it describes the expansion of the universe which is completely different. My argument was that the Kalam argument is a bad argument because it rests on an false misconception.
No votes have been placed for this debate.