The Instigator
TheLibertarianHalcyon
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
RockRiche
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

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 1 vote the winner is...
TheLibertarianHalcyon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 40357
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

TheLibertarianHalcyon

Con

The debate begins in round two. The first round is merely for acceptance. The burden of proof is on Pro.

The argument is as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe had a cause.
RockRiche

Pro

Everything that exists has a beginning except that which is not part of the formation of creation. Consciousness have always been the Living Word in which manifested the things that are seen with naked eye as matters or else. The one thing one should note is that consciousness does not require a beginning. Or you could also assert that Consciousness is the "I AM" that always were before "BE" came to be.

Here is an example from the Gospel of John Ch. 1: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with G-D and the Word was G-D." This illustrates the Consciousness and 'Total Knowledge" because the Word was G-D.

Furthermore that same Word is described been made flesh and dwelt among mankind. So here we have the "Word" and that same "Word" being made flesh and blood. For this simple fact, Consciousness is certainly not in need of a creator because it's existence does not evolve with time. Instead it created time for what were created from the beginning.

Therefore my argument is that G-D is the source of eternity and maker of time to decorate this eternal space. Certainly if anyone take their time to read scriptures that Word will be revealed in them as well.
Debate Round No. 1
TheLibertarianHalcyon

Con

Pro has not defended any of the premises. In lieu of rebutting Pro's 'argument', I will instead argue against the KCA itself.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Causality holds only at the macro level and only in spacetime. For instance, radioactive decay occurs spontaneously, as do the quantum fluctuations that create virtual particles. These phenomena are examples of quantum indeterminacy. [1] [2]

2. The universe began to exist.

When one says that something began to exist, they are saying that there is a point in time in which that thing does exist (now, in the case of the universe) and that there is a point in time in which the the thing doesn't exist. Non-being to being requires change.

It is problematic to say that the universe began to exist because change requires time, which is a property of the the universe! From this it follows that the universe has existed at every point in time!

The resolution has been negated.

[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

[2] http://www.infidels.org...
RockRiche

Pro

RockRiche forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheLibertarianHalcyon

Con

My opponent forfeited his round. There's nothing for me to address. Vote Con.
RockRiche

Pro

RockRiche forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheLibertarianHalcyon

Con

My opponent forfeited. I'm going to try this again at a later date.
RockRiche

Pro

RockRiche forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Sigh,the Big Bang and the explosion. That's why Fred Hoyle hated the word even though he accidentally coined it. That's not how it happened,its just a name. Unfortunately to us big bang infers explosion.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
Firstly, this is still lacking any demonstration. It is merely an assertion. You gave an example of something that caused something else with no connection to anything beginning to exist and it's cause, let alone proving that EVERYTHING that exist MUST have a cause. Until you can demonstrate this, you cannot get past your first premise in the argument.

Also, the very nature of causality is that it is dependent on TIME. Causality makes no sense without time, and it appears that space and time were created at the big bang, so to say that anything could have "caused" it seems to be nonsensical.
Posted by RockRiche 3 years ago
RockRiche
Cause and effect is in everything around us. Without both, this planet would be impossible to exist and the universes/galaxies. a house of cards can only last until the wind blows. therefore this wind is the cause effecting where those cards will eventually end up. Again, if the big bang happened, we also know by our current knowledge that something cause the explosion. and so to be able to ask the question "how" is the reason why the answer is there although we may not be able to prove it our carnal methods.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
No, sorry, seemed slightly like word salad to me. How does anything you just said demonstrate the claim that "everything that begins to exist has a cause"?
Posted by RockRiche 3 years ago
RockRiche
Yes I certainly can demonstrate it.

It is always easier to deny the existence of the ultimate source since gravity has kept us grounded in this very tiny planet therefore instead of looking up we look forward, around, and down. Technology has totally changed our focus, to only stare at devices which keeps ours heads forward or down most of the time. I remember Adam and Eve did the same thing because they went hiding because of their shame. Imagine what it was like for them, when the got kicked out of that mysterious garden!

The Egyptians and other great old civilizations has shown to us time and time again that everything came with the ORDER signature.

Also we all have in common the fact that none can be remember exactly the moment our mothers gave birth to each one of us, and surely none us could deny this simple truth, because that's the norm. How different is it to think that it all started within a moment in eternity and the clock started to tick? And then of course after our First Parents ate that forbidden fruit, our memory and image was changed drastically that we can no longer know exactly how in the world we got here in the first place.

I hope that answered your question. Thank you
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
The problem is with the first premise. Can you actually demonstrate that premise is necessarily true?
Posted by dannyc 3 years ago
dannyc
Good version of the Kalam argument. I constantly see people try to make the Kalam argument worse by saying therefore God must be the cause. Makes the defender of the Kalam argument look pretty stupid but also is not the actual argument. I don't think this version is true at all but at least it is fair for both parties.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Are you debating cause and effect ,or that the existence of the universe was god? I could debate this just on cause and effect,but if you want to debate god been the cause I would have to disagree with that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
TheLibertarianHalcyonRockRicheTied
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: Conduct to con because pro forfeited, arguments to Con because he had more convincing arguments and pro forfeited.