The Instigator
KingDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

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 7 votes the winner is...
KingDebater
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 853 times Debate No: 30132
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (7)

 

KingDebater

Pro

Hello. The structure of the debate will be the following:
Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2 - Arguments
Round3/4 - Rebuttals
FritzStammberger

Con

Classical argument


  1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;

  2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
    Therefore:

  3. The universe has a cause of its existence.


Contemporary argument


Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.


  1. An actual infinite cannot exist.

  2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

  3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.


Debate Round No. 1
KingDebater

Pro

'1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;'
Simply not true. [1] [2] This is a baseless assertion.

'2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;'
It's not been established that the universe did have an absolute beginning.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

FritzStammberger

Con

'1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;'
you said "Simply not true. [1] [2] This is a baseless assertion."

- Please provide 1 single example of something which has a beginning but no cause.

'2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;'
you said "It's not been established that the universe did have an absolute beginning."

However, this implies an infinite temporal regress of events.

I have already shown in round 1 that an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.

2. An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.

3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

- This point remains unrefuted.
Debate Round No. 2
KingDebater

Pro

'Please provide 1 single example of something which has a beginning but no cause.'
Virtual particals are a concept in quantom physics that have no observable cause. [1]

'However, this implies an infinite temporal regress of events'
Don't act as if they are the only two possibilities. [2][3]

But most of all, I recommend watching this. [4]


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]
FritzStammberger

Con

1. a "concept" with "no observable cause"

is nothing but an abstract "idea" with No evidence or observations to support it.

This is literally meaningless.


2. "Don't act as if they are the only two possibilities."

- please provide 1 single alternative possibility.


Conclusion

- my opponent dropped the first argument in this round by offering a meaningless jumble of words.

- my opponent must provide at least 1 example of an alternate possibility to
an infinite temporal regress of events as posted in round 2
Debate Round No. 3
KingDebater

Pro

Conclusion
What I've done here is I've pointed out two baseless assertions in the Kalam Cosmological argument. These two baseless assertions being that everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence and the other being that the universe has a beginning of its existence. Con has failed to provide any evidence to back these assertions up with. Therefore, I conclude that the Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.

I've also provided some sources including a video that points out the absurdity of the argument but judging by the speed of his reply, I heavily doubt that he paid any attention to them.

If Pro hopes to win this argument, he'll be required to back up the two assertions that I've pointed out.

Vote for Pro.


FritzStammberger

Con


1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.



This is True - My opponent tried to refute this by offering the following.


"Virtual particals are a concept in quantom physics that have no observable cause. [1]"



However, as I stated in round 3 this is nothing but a meaningless jumble of words. An abstract "idea" with No evidence or observations to support it


it is literally meaningless.



2. The universe has a beginning of its existence.



This is True - My opponent tried to refute this by saying;



"It's not been established that the universe did have an absolute beginning."



- I established that the universe does have a beginning because otherwise you would have an infinite temporal regress of events. But as I stated "an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist."



Therefore the universe DOES have a beginning.



My opponent tried to say that these were not the only two options, however he failed to provide even a single alternative option therefore my point of fact remains un-refuted.



Conclusion


1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.


- I showed how the universe must have a beginning because an infinite temporal regress of events is impossible.



Therefor:



The kalam cosmological argument is a very sound argument.



If my opponent wants to prove otherwise he must show that there is another option to the beginning of the universe other than:



a) a cause


or


b) an infinite temporal regress of events



in summery my opponent must show that something, namely (the entire universe from molecules to men) came spontaneously from absolutely nothing (which is repulsive to logic and reason). Unless and until he does that, the Kalam cosmological argument remains sound.



Thank you,


Fritz


Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by WellingtonThomas 3 years ago
WellingtonThomas
Fritz, you did not evidence the assumption that the infinite is impossible. There is no such thing as common sense in a debate, all that is true is what you can show evidence for. Evidence can be basic logic, but simply stating that something is a logical fallacy is not at all valid; the conclusion that something is a fallacy must be evidenced, as opposed to derived from dogma and prior opinions.

Whether or not Kalam has failed, you have failed Kalam.
Posted by FritzStammberger 3 years ago
FritzStammberger
I don't think the kalam is "failed" I think it is perfectly reasonable. I may have failed to prove this, however, it is most certainly not "failed". I will use it often actually.
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
Somebody needs to counter Badbob's vote. Or he needs to provide a better explanation.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
Badbob, vote bomb much?
Posted by FritzStammberger 3 years ago
FritzStammberger
No, YOU failed to show there is another option to the beginning of the universe other than:
a) a cause
or
b) an infinite temporal regress of event

debates over bud bud.
Posted by KingDebater 3 years ago
KingDebater
My opponent just ignored what I said in the 4th round and rambled on. He's failed to prove the two assertions despite his attempts.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
KingDebaterFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had the burden of proof. Pro restated his claims, but he never justified or defended them. Since Pro had the burden of proof, Con wins.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
KingDebaterFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: con wins
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Muted
KingDebaterFritzStammbergerTied
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: Pro had a weak rebuttal of the KCA. However, Con did even poorer.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
KingDebaterFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because Con didn't follow the round 1 rules of acceptance only. Arguments to Con because Pro never successfully rebutted Con's point that all beginnings have a cause. To call this mere assertion is laughable. Pro went on to say that some particles have no OBSERVABLE cause, but doesn't even try to argue that this means they actually have no cause.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
KingDebaterFritzStammbergerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: A weak refutation to the KCA meets an even weaker defense of it. Argument goes to Pro, whose ludicrous positing of uncaused beginnings met no rebuttal worth mentioning. Sources also go to Pro, not only because he gave sources other than the definition of the KCA, but because Con quite simply ignored those set forward in the debate by his opponent. (Although, to be fair, relying on sources to make your argument for you is pretty lame). Grammar and conduct are tied.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 years ago
likespeace
KingDebaterFritzStammbergerTied
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: The Wikipedia article on virtual particles lists eleven sources. That's too much evidence for Con to simply say, "[T]his is nothing but a meaningless jumble of words.. it is literally meaningless." I'd have like to see some experts who agree with him and a reasonable argument questioning their existence.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
KingDebaterFritzStammbergerTied
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: Before the KCA can be sound, the logic has to be valid, and both premises have to be true. Pro argued that the first premise was false by offering a counter-example. Con's response was that the counterexample was a meaningless combination of words, which I didn't find the least bit persuasive. Since the KCA fails if only one premise is false, and since Pro gave an argument that the first premise is false that Con did not successfully refute, i gave arguments to Pro. However, Con made an argument for the second premise that Pro was unable to refute. Unfortunately, establishing the truth of one of the premises was not enough to establish the soundness of the KCA.