The Instigator
Magic8000
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
tala00131
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Magic8000
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,296 times Debate No: 37357
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (3)

 

Magic8000

Con

Kalam

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore
3. The universe has a cause
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

Therefore,
5. An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

R1: Opening information and Pro's opening arguments
R2: My rebuttal and Pro's response
R3: My response and Pro's last response
R4: My closing response.

Since Pro is arguing in round 1, in round 4 Pro will put
"For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed."

Rules
No forfeits
No insults
No semantics
72 Hours to Post Argument
8000 Characters Max
10 day Voting Period
Start your arguments in Round 1
tala00131

Pro

The kalam cosmological argument goes as follows: whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe had a cause, the obvious cause is God. Is the first premise true? Logic tells us that it is impossible for something to come into being uncaused. Have you ever seen a horse come into being uncaused? No. Why? Because things don"t come into being uncaused. Believing something can come into existence uncaused is worse than believing in magic. Thus, the first premise is true. Is the second premise true? Did the universe begin to exist? Atheists have said for a long time that the universe is just eternal, and uncaused. But there are good scientific reasons to think that the universe began to exist. For example, the universe is expanding. This means that something had to start the expansion. The universe must have come into existence from a point. This means that the universe had a beginning. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is running out of usable energy. If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of energy by now. This follows that the universe had a cause. Let"s examine what that cause was. Since the universe can"t bring itself into existence, the cause must be outside of time and space. The cause must be: timeless, space less, immaterial, and powerful. Something like God.
Debate Round No. 1
Magic8000

Con

Thanks


Quantum Mechanics


Quantum Mechanics seems to refute the Kalam. One example is quantum vacuum fluctuations. Under the mainstream interpretation of QM, they begin to exist with no cause.


“In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.”[ Davies, Paul. 1983. God and the New Physics]


“Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless space-time can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature.” - Victor Stenger [ http://www.colorado.edu...]


Another attack from quantum mechanics comes from a strange concept called “Retro-Causality”. That is the idea the an effect can happen before its cause. As strange as it may sound, it has been observed in quantum mechanics [http://arstechnica.com...] [http://arxiv.org...]. This has implications on the KCA, first it’s a plausible cause (more on this later) and second, it creates a paradox for the KCA proponent. Pro can either


1. Accept the A theory of time and reject premise one. The A theory says only the present exists -the block theory says the past exists too, but the argument still works- this would mean the effect is uncaused. Because the cause doesn't exist yet and couldn’t be the cause of anything. If you want to keep premise one, you can go with the second option.


2. Accept the B theory of time and reject premise two. Under this view, since the effect happens before the cause, the present can affect the past and there can be a future cause for an event. This however destroys the Kalam. By the way, this doesn’t dispute the Big Bang or scientific evidence at all.


From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived- William Lane Craig [The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 183-184]


Epistemological Error


Trying to figure out the cause attempts to inquire about the unknown. Time, space, and matter as we know it may have began at the Big Bang. What was before the Big Bang, we’re completely in the dark about. We can only know what was at the starting point of the Big Bang. We don’t know if time, space, and matter were existing before the Big Bang, only that they were brought about in our Universe by the Big Bang. We have no idea what was before, to inquire what was, is simply meaningless.


Our reasoning must confirm to the universe. How can we extend our reasoning to what existed before?


Let's say, in my room there’s a door, behind this door is a portal into another dimension. In this dimension there can be anything, things which we have no understanding, things which are not possible in this world, things we could never conceive. There could be another set of laws, or they could be the same as ours. Is it really reasonable to make a positive claim of what’s in that dimension? I don’t think so. One can make arguments for what exists in it, but the conclusion can never be rationally accepted and such tasks would be useless since we’re ignorant of what’s in there. We can have inquire what’s in it, but we can never claim for sure what’s in there, without going in. Any claim is just as possible as another, since inside the dimension is meaningless to us.


Now, this dimension is before the universe. This debating over the cause is the same as debating what’s in the dimension. Claiming that a personal being caused it can’t be accepted, since there could be something that fits these attributes and not be personal. It's simply not a coherent concept.


Why God?


Pro tries to prove the cause was God. However, he doesn’t do a good job in doing so. He never proved the cause is a sentient cause. Pro himself says the cause only must be something like God. The KCA we’re arguing is for a sentient creator. Pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof.


I can think of many plausible causes that aren’t God. Although we can’t know for certain, I’m arguing that each of these are possible and thus a God needs more reasons to accept the God hypothesis.


Non-Sentient force.


Why can't the cause be an immaterial, causeless, eternal, powerful, spaceless, timeless, uncaused, non-sentient force that randomly creates things? Since this force was eternally creating things, one day the inevitable happened, energy, space, and time was created in a powerful reaction destroying everything including this force to create the two. The rest is history.


Why should we think God caused the Universe instead of this force?


Ekpyrotic Universe


This model says


“...our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension.” [http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...]


Why accept God over the Ekpyrotic model?


Retro-Causality


I’ve shown the retro-causality is possible. It may seem absurd, but it’s possible for an effect to happen before the cause. So why couldn’t the effect of the universe happen before the cause of it?


Why accept God over retro-causality?


Simultaneous causation


This is the idea that cause and effect can happen simultaneously. So, the cause of the universe could have been simultaneous with the effect. DDO user Sargon put it this way


"Imagine atoms A, B, and C. A comes into existence and instantaneously causes B, which instantaneously causes C, which instantaneously causes A. All of the atoms have causal explanation, and they all begin to exist at the exact same time." [http://www.debate.org...]


Why should we accept God over simultaneous causation?


Conclusion


I’ve shown quantum mechanics damages the argument, the way of determining the cause rests on an epistemological error, and I gave 4 plausible ways the universe can begin without appealing to a God.


Thanks, back to Pro.

tala00131

Pro

God exists, I know this apart from argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Magic8000

Con

It seems Pro conceded. It doesn't matter if you believe in God regardless of this argument, because you're the entire debate is centered around this argument.

Vote Con.
tala00131

Pro

tala00131 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Magic8000

Con

Oh Talal the debate didn't have to end like this.
This webspace could have been a debate about fish.
Perhaps you were too busy eating an orange.
It doesn't matter, the KCA is as sound as faulty door hinge.

Now I must go out on my lawn, but don't forget to vote Con!
tala00131

Pro

I was to busy for this debate, I'd be happy to do it again.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Ooops. There wasn't suppose to be a "you're" in my round 3.
Posted by Magic8000 3 years ago
Magic8000
Tuft, are you still willing to debate this subject?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
@ Duncan

You would be surprised how many people would take this and try to argue it scientifically.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
@ Duncan

You would be surprised how many people would take this and try to argue it scientifically.
Posted by eddie_pop 3 years ago
eddie_pop
You should challenge William Lane Craig to this. He seems to believe there is no fault in that argument.
Posted by Duncan 3 years ago
Duncan
Why do you keep doing the same topic? Does anyone ever accept it? I get so annoyed with all the atheist debates about how religion isn't backed by science. We already know that religion is based on blind faith, those who would oppose it would never accept this debate anyway.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
@ Donald They aren't the same and I agree with the statement. The main point I was making is placing (x) or (God) into a position where there are unknown variables is lazy and making a Gap argument. It does not have to be God but can be any choice that is not founded or unsupported by empirical evidence.

@ Sargon It would be frivolous because we essentially believe the same thing. Obviously it is logical to assume by nothing, that it did not just pop out of no where. It takes matter and particles to create something, the essential basis I believe is that quantum flotations can make something. That or one I never touch on which is the no boundary wave function.

Made famous by Hartle, essentially stating this

"When the universe started out," Hartle explains, "there wasn"t ordinary space-time. Instead of three space directions, as we have now, there were four space directions. At some point, a transition was made to ordinary space-time."

Or essentially that expansion would have occurred smoothly from a singular point. I just always chose the Krauss argument because it is simplified.

The only way I even debate this is if someone claims that you need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe. There are a variety of ways to counter that.

The one you and rational seem to take up is that there would have to be moments in time before the big bang, which leave the BOP on the believer. Also a solid stance
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
@ Donald They aren't the same and I agree with the statement. The main point I was making is placing (x) or (God) into a position where there are unknown variables is lazy and making a Gap argument. It does not have to be God but can be any choice that is not founded or unsupported by empirical evidence.

@ Sargon It would be frivolous because we essentially believe the same thing. Obviously it is logical to assume by nothing, that it did not just pop out of no where. It takes matter and particles to create something, the essential basis I believe is that quantum flotations can make something. That or one I never touch on which is the no boundary wave function.

Made famous by Hartle, essentially stating this

"When the universe started out," Hartle explains, "there wasn"t ordinary space-time. Instead of three space directions, as we have now, there were four space directions. At some point, a transition was made to ordinary space-time."

Or essentially that expansion would have occurred smoothly from a singular point. I just always chose the Krauss argument because it is simplified.

The only way I even debate this is if someone claims that you need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe. There are a variety of ways to counter that.

The one you and rational seem to take up is that there would have to be moments in time before the big bang, which leave the BOP on the believer. Also a solid stance
Posted by Tuft64 3 years ago
Tuft64
If the debate is open, I would like to debate on this topic
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
@Mikal

Your examples aren't quite the same. While it's reasonable to assume that Cancer got cured on it's own, as there are already forces there that could cure it, it's not as reasonable to conclude that something came from nothing when there was nothing to create that something.

In the first example, there ARE forces to cure the cancer. In the second, there AREN'T forces to create the universe. That's the difference between them.

I myself wouldn't based my belief on the Kalem Cosmological Argument. I'm hoping this debate will be good, so I can continue learning both sides on the topic.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
Magic8000tala00131Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Tala basically conceded. By the looks of it, tala had no shot anyway.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
Magic8000tala00131Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think I need an RDF for this one. Pro just stopped arguing for three rounds.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
Magic8000tala00131Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession