The Instigator
UtherPenguin
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BlueDreams
Con (against)
Winning
6 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 2 votes the winner is...
BlueDreams
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 895 times Debate No: 87349
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

UtherPenguin

Pro


Rules:
-Burden of Proof is on Pro
-Follow the format
-Be civil.
-If Con has any problems with the terms I'm willing to tweak them before the debate begins.

Terms:

Kalam Cosmological argument: A modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God, stating that the existence of the universe requires a cause and that said cause must be something beyond the universe such as God. (A more elaborate summary of the argument can be found in the video on the side)

sound: logically valid and premises as true.

Format:

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening Arguments (No new arguments)

Round 3: Rebuttals

Round 4: Counter-rebuttals and conclusions (no new arguments)
BlueDreams

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
UtherPenguin

Pro

Thanks to Con for accepting this challenge, look forward to a thought provoking debate!

Burdens:

The burden of proof in this debate if would be to show that the premises of the Kalam Argument to be true, and to show how the progression and eventual conclusion of the argument is logically valid. The premises which the argument stand on come from this brief syllogism [1]:

-Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
-The universe began to exist;
Therefore
-The universe has a cause.

The conclusion of this argument is as followed:

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; ergo, God exists.

To summarize, the burden of proof is to prove the initial syllogism to be correct and show that the progression into the conclusion is rationally valid.

Source:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org...


Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause

Causality, otherwise the relationship between cause and effect, stands as the principle that "everything that exists has a cause" [1]

The principle of causality stands as a basis to logic, scientific observations and everyday rational deductions. The scientific method is the series of observations and experimentations in order for one to reach a speculative hypothesis and eventually develop of coherent or well proven theory. However, in order for this basis to even begin to stand, one must first take the basic assumption that whatever phenomena one is observing must have an explainable or at least comprehendable cause, one takes the assumption that even if the cause is yet to be known that said cause exists in the first place [2] [3]. If said cause did not exist, or said cause could not be explained, then the scientific method would be rendered null and void.

Therefore, the assertion of this first premise is fully valid, as causality is the

Sources:
1. https://www.google.com...
2.
http://www.ldolphin.org...
3. http://www.saasoft.com...

Premise 2: The universe began to exist

The most commonly accepted theory on the cosmic beginning of the universe was the Big Bang, and over astro-physical observation it remains as one of the most strongly prevailing cosmological model of the universe [1].

The model states that the universe evolved from an extremely dense and heated point (roughly the size of an atom) and began to expand from there [2]

The very fact that the universe had an age alone suggests that it began to exist. Research from the European Space Agency shows the age of the universe to be roughly 11 billion years old, according to research [2]

It [the universe] must be at least 11 billion years old. It can be older, but not younger.”

The premise for the existence of a cosmic beginning is true in this case, since the universe has an age, it must have had a beginning, otherwise any research into age would be rendered meaningless.

Source:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org.... /Big_Bang

2. https://en.wikipedia.org...

3. http://www.space.com...

Addendum: The Universe was caused

This assertion is based on the prior premises that a) “Everything that begins to exist has a cause” and b) “the universe began to exist.”

Basic deductions will most likely conclude that the universe was caused. However, this cause cannot be the universe itself. The universe cannot will itself into existence as that would blatantly contradict the law of conservation of mass that “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed”.

If the universe began to exist, it must have an age and is therefore restricted by dimensions of time. The fact that the universe can possibly expand must imply the existence of special restrictions within the universe, with both of these qualities in mind, the universe is also constricted by causality and conservation of mass. Meaning that the universe could not have occurred on its own, neither could it have brought about its own existence. If the universe was caused, then this cause must be something that is not restricted by the same laws as the universe itself, in short, it must be something beyond the universe, leading into the KCA’s conclusion.

The nature of the “cause”

As stated in the conclusion of the Kalam argument, the nature of the universe’s cause must be of the following: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”.

In short, this cause of the universe must be in nature “beyond” the attributes of the universe, it must transcend causality and time. As seen in the prior premise, the universe itself could not have fit this role, as the universe had a beginning, runs on finite energy and could not have willed itself into existence.

The cause of the universe must be beyond time, otherwise said cause would require a cause on its own (this would lead into an unending cycle of “caused causes”, which cannot perpetuate endlessly). The universe itself has an age and a beginning, hence cannot fit this role.

Furthermore, this cause must be without space or form, as that is quantity of the universe. This cause must, in short, transcend all prior assertions of causality. To do so would also require enormous, incomprehensible power. All of which are qualities that would accurately fit into the concept of God

In Conclusion, the premises of the KCA fit well into the law of Causality, along with well encompassing the nature of the universe and proving it’s finite nature. Later deductions from the argument flow in a rationally valid progression, therefore, this proves the soudness of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

That concludes my arguments for this round, onto you Con ;)

BlueDreams

Con

Thanks to Pro for establishing this debate. I look forward to a productive and civil dialogue. First, we should clarify what exactly follows if Pro has the burden of proof. The burden of proof allows the voters to determine who will win the arguments score if both debaters argue equally well. For example, if Pro and Con are equally convincing and the burden of proof is on Pro, then Pro loses the debate. As Con, I must merely offer arguments which are equally as convincing as Pro’s in order to win. Pro, on the other hand, has to offer arguments which are more convincing than mine in order to win.


Pro defends his first premise by pointing out that when scientists try to explain physical events, they assume a cause and effect relationship. Because scientists assume a cause and effect relationship, then there must be a law saying all physical events have a cause and effect. However, this argument does not reflect current thinking in science. While it’s true that most everyday science involves causality, higher level physics does not, especially when it comes to the origins of the universe. According to the philosopher of physics Quentin Smith, Hartle and Vilenkin ideas on the wave function of the universe“imply that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features our universe possesses. For example, contains intelligent organisms such as humans. This remaining universe has a certain probability very high -- near to a hundred percent -- of coming into existence uncaused.” (http://tinyurl.com...)I’m not interested in determining if these theories are plausible. If they are at least possible according to current scientific models, then it follows that science does not necessarily need to make use of causality when explaining the origins of the universe, refuting Pro’s defense.


I’d like to turn to Pro’s defense of his second premise. My contention is that because we do not have a complete scientific theory on the origins of the universe, Pro cannot use science to prove that the universe must have had a beginning.


Essentially, Pro argues “If Einstein’s general theory of relativity is true, the universe began to exist. Einstein’s general theory of relativity is true, therefore the universe began to exist.” By true, I mean a one-to-one correspondence with physical reality. In this sense, general relativity is false, refuting Pro’s syllogism. Now, I don’t mean I deny the predictive power of general relativity on the scales it’s meant to apply to. What I mean is that general relativity cannot be true in that it’s an incomplete theory of the universe. In other words, general relativity is successful on some scales, but not all scales, thus invalidating it as a candidate for a complete explanation of the origin of the universe. Obviously, an incomplete theory of the universe does not share a one-to-one correspondence to physical reality. General relativity is incomplete because it does not apply to the quantum mechanical scale. While relativity assumes the principle of locality, quantum mechanics is rife with non-locality, entailing that relativity does not apply to the quantum scale (http://tinyurl.com...). Since relativity does not apply to the quantum scale, it does not apply to all scales, entailing that relativity is an incomplete theory of the universe and therefore untrue. Scientists recognize that while relativity is predictively successful in many respects, it is not a true explanation of the origins of the universe because it does not apply to the quantum scale, inspiring their long-standing search for a quantum gravity theory to marry the two together. Quantum gravity models, which are theoretically complete, explain the origins of the universe and combine relativity with quantum mechanics. According to some quantum gravity models, the universe had a beginning, while others affirm an eternal universe. In any case, we aren’t even close to knowing which ones are true yet. Pro uses an incomplete scientific theory to prove the universe had a beginning, but when we look at the complete scientific theories about the origins of the universe, it’s evident we have no idea if the universe had a beginning or not.


I now turn to the third component of Pro's argument. "If the universe had a cause, then that cause is god. The universe had a cause, therefore the cause of the universe is god." My contention is that Pro's syllogism is false because there are many causes we can devise which are just as reasonable as god.


First, referring back to quantum gravity models, we have many scientific theories which explain the origins of the universe without god. There are many famous examples being considered as we speak: the Vilenkin quantum tunneling model, the Hartle-Hawking model, and the Carroll-Chen model. These explanations are equally as plausible as god. Although they are scientifically tentative models, god is not even a scientific model to begin with, nonetheless a tentative one. Just like god, there are no a priori philosophical reasons to rule out these models. Thus, these models are scientifically and logically equivalent to god as an explanation, refuting Pro’s syllogism.


The universe could have been brought into being by infinite simultaneous causation of elementary particles. Simultaneous causation is the idea that "the causal order must not be the temporal order because of the possibility of cause and effect being contemporaneous."(http://tinyurl.com...) X and Y have such a relationship if X, the cause, and Y, the effect, happen at the same instantaneous moment. The possibility of simultaneous causation demonstrates how the universe could have came into being. The earliest instant of the universe was simultaneous causation of elementary particles. For example, a given quark is caused to exist by a given electron, which is caused to exist by a given quark, ad infinitum, at the earliest instant of the universe. This causation is instantaneous, so so all of these cause and effect relations happen at the same moment in time. Elementary particles therefore have an explanation with reference to other elementary particles. Since all physical things are reducible to interactions of elementary particles, an explanation of elementary particles in the first state entails an explanation of everything within the first state. This hypothesis makes predictions which are confirmed by physics. It predicts that particles are able to instantaneously affect the conditions of other particles. This is proven by the Aspect experiments mentioned before. His 1986 experiment, "Experiments on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-type Correlations with Pairs of Visible Photons', published in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, found that "If a photon x is measured to be in a 'spin up' state, this simultaneously causes a spatially distant photon y to be in a 'spin down' state". The philosopher of physics Quentin Smith writes that "Alain Aspect's confirmation of Bell's theorem can plausibly be taken as confirming the existence of simultaneous or instantaneous causation across arbitrarily large spatial distances.". It is therefore the case that particles can instantaneously change the states of other particles. It also predicts that space is infinite.This is entailed by inflationary Big Bang cosmology also entails that space is infinite. Alexander Vilenkin and Jaume Garriga published an article called 'Many worlds in one' in the journal Physics Review, and they conclude in their abstract that "generic prediction of inflation is that the thermalized region we inhabit is spatially infinite."


It is logically possible for the universe to have caused itself to come into being. This may seem absurd at first glance. As popular reasoning goes, "If something causes itself, doesn't it exist before it begins to exist?" I would agree that this type of self-causality is absurd. Something cannot cause itself to begin to exist before it begins existing. However, there is a different type of self-causality which does not fall into this absurdity. Suppose that the universe brings itself into being at an instantaneous moment; In other words, it causes itself at the same time it comes into being. One cannot object to this scenario on the basis that the universe exists before it causes itself, because there is no temporal gap in the scenario I am describing. Therefore, there is a logically possible situation where the universe brings itself into being.


As we can see, Pro’s arguments for premise one are questionable, his defense of premise two relies on an incomplete cosmological theory, and his defense of premise three ignores equally plausible naturalistic explanations. Thus, the resolution is not affirmed. Back to Pro!



Debate Round No. 2
UtherPenguin

Pro

Thanks to Con for posting his arguments, in this round, I will be addressing refutations made by my opponent in regards to the premises of the argument.

R1: Cause and Effect

In this premise, Con argues that Causality as a scientific law or principle is not absolute on the quantum and cosmological level and that therefore, the universe would not require a cause.

Due to outside factors, I currently do not have the time to fully address this rebuttal. I will however address this argument in its entirety during the next round, incorporating it into both my conclusive arguments and final rebuttals.

R2: Age of the Universe

In Con’s second series of arguments, he argues that Einstein theory of relativity is incomplete or inapplicable to the quantum level, it cannot be true.

This however, is a misrepresentation of my defense towards the second premise, as the it was not the primary basis of my argument, neither mention of Einstein nor relativity were seen in my argument. While elements of the theory were present, it was not the core foundation of premise two, and certainly not to the degree that I would argue “If Einstein’s general theory of relativity is true, the universe began to exist.” The defence for premise two was in fact more dependent on the theory of the Big Bang, a theory in which Con had failed to refute in my argument.

Furthermore, even if General relativity was the basis used for my argument, other , far more well accepted theories defend the second premise.

For example, the second law of Thermodynamics [1], the law asserts that for a thermodynamic process to occur, an irreversible series of entropies towards a physical body must increase[2].

In short, not thermodynamic process can occur without a gradual loss of thermal energy, in other words, the supply of energy is finite. As there is a gradual decline in the supply of energy, the universe could not have existed perpetually as an infinite existence is incompatible with a finite supply. To suggest an infinite universe would require either contradicting or denying the second law of thermodynamics.

Sources:

1. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

2. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


R3: Requirement of God

Con argues that the existence of a universe does not require a cause such as God, suggesting that equally plausible explanations for the beginning of the universe exists. In Con’s own words:

However, there is a different type of self-causality which does not fall into this absurdity [The absurdity of the universe existing prior to it’s beginning) . Suppose that the universe brings itself into being at an instantaneous moment; In other words, it causes itself at the same time it comes into being. One cannot object to this scenario on the basis that the universe exists before it causes itself, because there is no temporal gap in the scenario I am describing. Therefore, there is a logically possible situation where the universe brings itself into being.”

Unlike the KCA, this explanation fails to explain why such an occurrence would happen. Con argued in his conclusion that an explanation like the one mentioned above shows equal plausibility to the Kalam cosmological argument, however, Con does not show how this is the case. Con only shows how it may be possible, however in my prior arguments in rebuttals I have shown how the existence of God would be necessary. As Con had reiterated previously: Pro, on the other hand, has to offer arguments which are more convincing than mine in order to win.

This concludes a fraction of my rebuttals for this round, as stated previously, I will proceed with currently unaddressed arguments in the next round, I’ll be glad to see what Con’s response may be. Onto you con.

BlueDreams

Con

(As a note, the 505 error glitch on DDO which has plagued many of us prevented me from having a lot of time to write my arguments, so please forgive me if they seem rushed at some points.)


I want to begin by pointing out that Pro concedes my framework in respect to his burden of proof. If my arguments are equally convincing, then Pro loses the debate. Additionally, Pro concedes my criticism of his warrants for premise one of the KCA. From this fact alone, his argument is currently unsound because the first premise remains undefended. I await Pro’s rebuttal to this line of argument in the next round.



In regards to the second premise of the KCA, Pro advanced the following argument: If Einstein’s general theory of relativity is true, the universe began to exist. Einstein’s general theory of relativity is true, therefore the universe began to exist. I rebutted Pro’s contention by pointing out that despite its predictive success on some scales, general relativity is an incomplete model that has yet to be unified with quantum gravity, and thus does not correspond to physical reality. Pro mustered one response to my detailed analysis of the current scientific status of general relativity: ‘I’m not talking about general relativity, I’m talking about the Big Bang’. In advancing this argument, Pro demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the relationship between the Big Bang theory and general relativity. Simply put, general relativity offers us a set of equations that describe potential conditions in the physical universe. When scientists noticed that the universe is seemingly isotropic and homogenous, only one set of equations within general relativity could be true: the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metrics. These metrics provide us with a physical picture of the universe that we call the Big Bang: an expanding spacetime that began with an initial cosmological singularity (this is further demonstrated by the Hawking-Penrose theorem). It’s quite clear that the Big Bang cosmological model is based on general relativity, and therefore, the incompleteness of general relativity is incredibly relevant here even if Pro erroneously insists otherwise.


Pro brings up a new argument, suggesting the second law of thermodynamics provides evidence the universe began to exist. Again, Pro is misunderstanding scales here. The law of thermodynamics is a macroscopic law, not a microscopic law. We have no idea how it plays out on the quantum mechanical scale, so it’s dangerous to linearly extrapolate backwards without heeding this information. Furthermore, Pro overstates the importance of the second law. It does not prove the universe had a beginning. At best, it proves entropy had a beginning. These are obviously not the same thing. In any case, as confident Pro is in using physical laws to prove the universe had a beginning, physicists don’t agree with him. Guth, the famous cosmologist, said ““I don’t know whether the universe had a beginning. “. This ties into my point about quantum gravity models. When we look at our most complete models of physics, some of them say that the universe had a beginning, others say it didn’t, and we can’t really choose between them at this point.


In response to my alternative explanations of the beginning of the universe, Pro states that god is the necessary explanation, not the physical possibilities I proposed. However, because my examples are at least possible, Pro’s arguments fall apart. He states that the cause of the universe must be immaterial. My examples show that the cause of the universe can be material. He states that the cause of the universe must timeless and spaceless. My examples show that the cause of the universe can take place in space and time. As a whole, the models I propose, since they are at least possible, show that Pro’s move from “the universe had a beginning” to “the universe must have had a transcendent cause” is wholly unjustified, because there are plenty of ways to explain the beginning of the universe without such a maneuver. Pro’s only argument for the plausibility of a transcendent cause is its alleged necessity, but once it’s been shown that such a cause is not necessary, the explanation that “god did it” shares equal plausibility with the others I presented, and Pro’s burden of proof requires him to prevent reasons to prefer his explanation over mine.


Back to Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
UtherPenguin

Pro

In this round I will be giving one final rebuttal alongside my conclusive arguments.

R1: Quantum Model

In Round 2, Con argues that the relation between the universe and its beginning does not work by a cause and effect relationship at the quantum level, and that therefore the universe would not need a cause. Con’s argument however fails to refute the first premise, as seen in the end of con’s argument

I’m not interested in determining if these theories are plausible. If they are at least possible according to current scientific models, then it follows that science does not necessarily need to make use of causality when explaining the origins of the universe

This in turn, contriadicts Con’s burdens to which he emphasized himself earlier in the debate

As Con, I must merely offer arguments which are equally as convincing as Pro’s in order to win. Pro

In my arguments, I had argued that the cause and effect relationship with the universe was a necessity, that the universe required a cause. In this argument, Con presents the Quantum Model only as a possibility and as seen from the previous excerpt, even that is prone to question.

Con fails to meet burdens that he himself adds to the debate, as shown in the end of his argument.

In Conclusion:

I had argued that the Kalam Cosmological argument was sound in that the premises could scientifically verified, that the Big Bang Theory and Second Law of Thermodynamic clearly showed that the universe was caused. I had established early that Causality was an important principle in recognizing the origins of the universe and that said origins had to be beyond the universe, in turn, the initial cause must be something that is not met by any of the universes restrictions (time, space, et cetera). I had shown in the end of my argument that the conclusion that of the KSA logically consistent. Therefore, I had sufficiently met the burden of proof previously established in the debate.

Many thanks to Con for providing a civil and thought provoking debate.

Vote Pro.

BlueDreams

Con


In order to judge this debate, we must answer one question: Were Pro’s arguments, on balance, more convincing than Con’s? If not, Pro loses the debate. Considering the misunderstandings of physics underlying Pro’s arguments, as well as a litany of poor arguments made by Pro throughout the debate, arguments must go to Con.




Pro’s new argument, which holds I violate my own standards for the debate, is plainly false. Let’s analyze this contention in context. Pro, in the beginning of the debate, argued that the “law of causality” is absolutely necessary to the practice of science, justifying the premise that ‘Everything which begins to exist has a cause”. In other words, it’s not even possible for science to work without the notion of causality, so the causal principle must be true. I provided one empirical example of a scientific theory (Hartle-Hawking) which does not make use of causality. If this theory is even possibly true, then it is also possible for science to work without causality. Thus, the possibility of the theory I mentioned undercuts Pro’s contention that causality is necessary for science. When Pro quotes me as writing that the plausibility of the theory is not of interest, he interprets this as an admission that my arguments are just possibilities and therefore inferior to his argument, which claims the necessity of causality over the possibility of acausality. Pro is clearly missing the relationship between possibility and necessity here. In respect to Pro’s defense of P1, which argues the truth of P1 via the necessity of causality in the practice of science, possibility is all I need to prove in order to shut down Pro’s argument. If somebody says “It is necessary that all human beings are males”, I only need to illustrate the possibility that any given human being could be a female in order to disprove their idea. Pro chastises my argument as being “only a possibility”, but unfortunately, he overlooks the importance of that fact in relation to the strength of his argument. Since Pro barely addressed my responses to his points about the possibility of my proposals, Pro loses this area, and thus, the argument from the necessity of causality falls apart.




(As a note, Pro states that I argued that causality does not apply at the quantum scale, so the universe can begin to exist uncaused at the quantum level, , but in the quote he referred to, I was talking about a quantum gravity model where the universe doesn’t have a cause, not the suggestion that the universe can emerge uncaused at the quantum level.)




Pro argued that the Big Bang theory provides scientific proof our universe had a beginning. I countered this by pointing out that general relativity is an incomplete model of the universe’s beginning. Pro responded by distinguishing between relativity and the Big Bang, but subsequently, I showed how the Big Bang theory has relativity at its foundation. Pro ignored my counterargument in one round and proceeded to repeat himself in the final round without addressing my criticisms. For this reason, I believe I won this aspect of our debate, refuting Pro’s first defense of his second premise. Similarly, because Pro did not riposte my ideas about thermodynamics, Pro loses this point as well. As a result, we effectively have no reasons from Pro to believe the universe had a beginning, leaving his burden of proof unfulfilled.




Succinctly, Pro dropped too many arguments and made too many bad ones to be considered the winner of the debate. I thank Pro for his time and effort, and anyone in the audience who takes the time to read or vote on this debate.










Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lannan13 7 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 2

The third premisis is a little more confusing than the other arguments. Pro argues with the Convervation of mass and states that the universe has a infite supply of energy. He moves to state that there cannot be anyway to show that the universe is able to cause itself and hence the universe would have to have an external cause, one that it outside the bounds of spacetime. Con counters with examples that show the universe's existance without the necessity of a god. He then moves down to a small level to show that the Quarks are key to the beginning of the existance of the universe as it shows their interaction with electrons created exspansion. The inflamation created by the interaction led to the explotion of the Big Bang. Pro's only response is that these can still be applied to the KCA. Con wins this argument here by showing that the universe can be created in spacetime as he showed that the universe can, at the same time, come into existance and create itself.

With all of the premises refuted and the syllogism negated, I have no choice, but to award Con the Argument points for this debate.
Posted by lannan13 7 months ago
lannan13
RFD Part 1

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is one that is a sylligism where in order for the conclusion to be true, Pro would have to win the three supporting Premises, if not, Con wins the debate. By the very nature of the debate, the Burden of Proof lays on Pro.

Pro set's up the first premis by arguing for the causation of the universe would have to rely on a being created as there would need to be a cause to the creation of the universe. If there wasn't a cause then there could not be an effect. If this argument was false then the Scientific model would be false. Con quickly counters with several different examples as to how the universe could have been created and there be intellegent life. Almost all of which exist with a universe in all Possible Worlds. Pro wasn't able to recover due to him dropping it R3 and I do realize that he did have some personal matters, but in this debate, that point is moot. In R4, Pro is unable to refute Con's framework which would mean that Con wins this argument. At this point the syllogism has been refuted and Con wins the debate, but I shall continue with the voting.

In the second premise, Pro's argument hangs on around two key points. Relativity and Thrymodynamics, the latter being brought up R3. Con's counter by stating that both of these points are not complete. Relativity cannot comply with quantum mechanics were at the molecular level the predictability plummets. He then applies the same for his other argument showing that it only works on a Macrolevel. If anything this shows the creation of entropy, not the universe. Pro failed to uphold his BOP here in this contention, failing to show the creation of the universe. Con wins this contention.
Posted by lannan13 7 months ago
lannan13
I'll give this a read through and vote probably later today.
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
RFD (Part 1):

This was a pretty clear win for Con. The decision was pretty easy to make. Pro's arguments are riddled with inaccuracies pointed out by Con, and Pro frequently confuses the BOP. Con manages to neatly refute all of Pro's premises and justifications for those premises, so I vote Con. Pro's BOP is to show that the premises are true and the conclusion follows. Con's BOP is, as Con represents it, only to show that any of his hypotheses is *equally* plausible to Pro's models. If Con does that to even *one* premise of the cosmological argument, Con wins the debate.

The first premise regards causation. Pro argues that scientists presume that the law of cause and effect applies in the scales of the universe, and that the causal principle is a necessary first principle in science. From that reasoning, Pro concludes that the premise is true. Con's rebuttal to this is that higher-level physics, especially at quantum scales, doesn't presume causality. Physics accepts non-causal explanations for the origin of the universe as possible, so that's sufficient to refute the premise. I don't find Pro's response compelling. Pro says that Con's burden is to show his hypotheses to be equally plausible, and that since Pro held the premise to be *necessary* while Con merely demonstrated possibility, Pro wins this premise. It's clear that Pro doesn't even understand what "necessary" and "possible" mean. If Pro held something to be necessarily true, if Con proved that it was *possibly* false, Con refutes it since Pro has the BOP. Con utterly tears down Pro's semantic misrendering of the BOP by showing what Con's burden is correctly.

I think this is easily sufficient to grant Con the first premise, which is completely refuted. I can vote Con right there, but for completeness, I'll analyze the other premises.
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
(Part 2)

I don't find Pro's justification for the second premise compelling either. Pro argues that the Big Bang, under universal application of general relativity, entails an absolute origin of the universe. Con refutes this by showing how general relativity doesn't adequately work at quantum scales, and that it has to be supplemented with other theories. Pro's response tries to shift his position entirely by arguing that his justification was more with regards to the Big Bang than general relativity. Con then proves that the Big Bang model hinges on general relativity, and that if general relativity doesn't apply at quantum scales, neither does the singularity. I buy this response, despite its vague articulation.

Pro entirely mixes up this premise and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Big Bang. Pro's second justification for this premise, that the second law of thermodynamics entails an origin, is fully refuted as well. Con shows that the law only applies at a macroscopic scale, and one can't apply it at such a quantum scale. Con also argues that this, at best, entails that *entropy* had a beginning, which is not the same as the universe having a beginning.

Finally, the third premise -- while better justified than the other two -- doesn't succeed in affirming either. Con argues that simultaneous causality would support the notion that the cause isn't one that *precedes* the universe or fully transcends it, so the properties can't be applied at this scale. Pro retains the constant assertion that he has proven the existence of God as necessary while Con is merely relying on possibilities, mixing up the definitions of "necessary" and "possible."
Posted by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
(Part 3)

Con refutes every premise brought up in this debate, and fully tears down the cosmological argument. At every slight misunderstanding of physics brought up by Pro, Con catches it and Pro is unable to avoid the barrage of arguments that follows. It's clear that Pro is able to spot every tiny error, and clearly articulates the impact each error has to the arguments in question. While Con doesn't clearly explain his refutation of the third premise, the first two premises were torn down completely.

Thus, I vote Con.
Posted by BlueDreams 9 months ago
BlueDreams
For those who might not believe me:

"A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound." (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)
Posted by kasmic 9 months ago
kasmic
Make sure your good with the definitions before accepting the debate. It would suck for this to simple be a misunderstanding.
Posted by BlueDreams 9 months ago
BlueDreams
Other than that, everything is good. Look forward to accepting this on Monday.
Posted by UtherPenguin 9 months ago
UtherPenguin
I'll change the definition then.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 months ago
lannan13
UtherPenguinBlueDreamsTied
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: RFD in comments section.
Vote Placed by tejretics 8 months ago
tejretics
UtherPenguinBlueDreamsTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments