The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound
- The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound.
- An argument is sound if and if (i) the argument is valid and (ii) all of the premises are true.
- Pro will make his/her opening argument in round one and will simply put 'Vote Pro' in round 4.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is formulated as follows:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
C. Therefore the universe had a cause.
I'll start by presenting the first premise: everything that had a beginning had a cause. The proof of this statement is quite simple, really. How are you here? You began to exist in your mother's womb. Your cause was the relationship between your mother, and father. You did not cause yourself to exist, and you have not existed before you were, so logically speaking, you had a beginning, and therefore a cause. Plus, have you ever seen a finite thing with no cause? I have yet to see it.
The second premise states that the universe had a beginning. This is proven through Einstein's theory of relativity, the fact of the expanding universe, the laws of thermodynamics, etc. Even the Big Bang theory itself proves the finite nature of the universe.
So since the universe DID have a beginning, and no finite thing can exist without a cause, then it stands to reason that the universe did indeed have a cause. In other words, because the first premise is true, then the other two assumptions naturally fall into place.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
We now know that this is false. Objects of different mass false at the same rate in a vacuum. The factor that determines that rate at which an object falls is air resistance. Don't trust me though, go find two objects of similar shape and test Aristotle's hypothesis for yourself.
The KCA is predicated on the A-theory of time (presentism) being true. Presentism is the philosophical position that only the present moment is real. Events and entities of the past and the future do not exist. If this is true, then the universe did begin to exist.
Also, your example of quantum fluctuations is actually CAUSED by the capture of an electron. It's basic physics, really. An atom captures an electron, causing its net charge to become unstable resulting in a radioisotope. At this point, the nucleus breaks apart into lighter nuclei. This releases radiation resulting in gamma rays, etc. (1) Therefore, these quantum fluctuations are not really uncaused.
I would like to post more, have no time. I will, however, provide the exact same link to quantum fluctuations, pointing out that an explanation for these is given on the page. Suffice it to say that, given the universe DID have a beginning, it most certainly had to have a cause. No finite thing in existence has absolutely no cause. The universe is no exception.
Pro responded in reverse order, starting with P2.
"[The Big Bang] was not a way of saying that the universe is tenseless or atemporal."
I never made that claim either. You're beating on a strawman.
"Logic stands in opposition to a self-created uncaused universe."
I have not argued for a self-created universe. You are beating on a strawman. "
Pro has not refuted my objection P1 or P2 and has not told me how he knows that causality, which we know about from observations made within the universe, applies to the universe.
The resolution has been negated.
Accusation 1: Objection to Premise 1-The intuition card
My opponent will admit that intuition is not the brightest bulb in the realm of causality. After all, it is very subjective, and often misleading when it comes to objective truth. He points to the fact that we, for several thousands of years, thought that the sun revolved around us as proof that intuition is untrustworthy. This, however, isn't the whole story. True, we depended on what we saw for this, but it is not true that this results in an untrustworthy intuition. After all, we intuitively know we are in the wrong when we lie about our dog eating our homework in school. Intuitively, we cry out for justice when we see a criminal being tried for murder. So I point this out. How do you know that you have not always been? Did science tell you that you were born? No. You just know because you see your parents. They are the evidence that you were born-and that you had a cause. Yes, I'm restating my argument from birth. When you can confidently tell me how we don't intuitively know that we (human beings) had a cause, I will gladly change my position.
Accusation 2: Objection to Premise 2-Causality
Logic follows from the previous premise that (if it had a beginning) the universe had a cause. So I need not prove anything here as it rests on my statements above. Still, however, the point is made to ask what proof I have of the beginning of the universe. I simply point a finger to the expansion of the universe, and the laws of thermodynamics as well as remind you of the Big Bang theory itself. They all say that the universe has not been here forever, and that it WILL NOT be here forever. Therefore, it stands to reason that the universe (in that it had a beginning) had to have a cause.
Accusation 3: Applying Causality to the Universe
Since the universe is just like any other finite object (it has a beginning, and ergo a cause) it is quite simple to apply causality to it. The only question really facing us is, "What would this cause be like?" That, however, is another question for another time. All you have to do to apply causality to the universe is ask yourself: is this closed system winding down, or winding up? Is it getting more chaotic, or more orderly? Given the evidence (the fact that galaxies other than our own are moving AWAY from us, and the process of oxidation (rusting on a bicycle) it suffices to say that we are in a downward spiral. Things just get worse, not better, over time. So what does that mean? It means that this universe had to start somewhere. There had to be a time when expansion was equivalent to zero, and all energy was usable for work. That would be the point of the beginning. It is also worthy to note that it is mathematically impossible to have eternal universe given our knowledge of the Big Bang (1). So where does that put us in relation to the KCA? Well, if the first two premises is true (which we've proven it to be, then the other must logically follow.
Now for my closing statements. Thank you for allowing me the time to debate this with you. I largely appreciate it, and will always remember it. My opponent deserves some credit. He has given this a lot of thought. Sorry I didn't have more time to truly broach your points in my previous rebuttals. I was simply strapped for time, and internet connection. In closing, I would like to remind you that the universe (as big as it may be) had to have a cause. It's the only possibility that makes any sense of the data we've gathered about the universe itself. True, there are spontaneous events that occur within the universe, but that doesn't prove that the universe itself is of spontaneous origins. It simply proves that the universe is spontaneous in nature. It's unpredictable. That's all I'm saying. Thanks for your time. I had a lot of fun.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|