The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,849 times Debate No: 24989
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (0)




My opponent will assume the burden of proof by demonstrating that the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is using valid logic, and that its premises are true. I will be rebutting my opponent's claims, and attacking the Kalam Cosmological Argument in anyway possible to undermine it.

This first round will be used for my opponent's opening argument, while in this first round I am just stating the rules. In the last round however, my opponent must not reply with any rebuttals or arguments after mine, but rather with:

"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."

Failure to follow the rules, will result in an automatic forfiet.


I thank my opponent for my first debate- To the point..

All I (PRO) have to do is logically defend the logic and premises of the Cosmological Argument beyond a reasonable doubt. I (PRO) hold the Burden of Proof for the Conclusion.

The Con must logically defeat the logic or one of the premises of the Cosmological Argument to a reasonable doubt. Burden of proof is on the Con ONLY if he/she chooses to bring up new claims.


Logic -(from the Greek λογική logikē) refers to both the study of modes of reasoning (which are valid and which are fallacious) and the use of valid reasoning.

Universe- the totality of everything that is observable. This includes all matter and energy [9] For this round we are going to use it in the traditional sense, the OBSERVABLE Universe.

1.Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2.The Universe had a beginning.
3.Therefore the Universe had a cause.

The Law of Causality, the fundamental principle of science. Francis Bacon (The father of science) put it- "True knowledge is knowledge by causes." Science is inherency the search for causes and without it the laws of logic do not apply. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality saying, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." [3][5]
To deny the Law of Causality is to deny is to deny rationality, however my opponent has started a logical debate thus concedes fundamentally causality.
I have rebuttals for time assumption arguments, but that will be next round.

The Big Bang theory itself does not state how, why, or even what condition the Universe was in before the miniscule non-singularity. It does not offer an explanation as to a beginning but other fields do. The following are readily accessible for anyone to look up, but the references I have provided contain these as well:

1.The Second Law of Thermodynamics- If the Universe has eternally existed, than then time would have thinned the Universe to highest possible entropy state allowing nothing to form or even justifiably exist because any finite matter infinitely uniform (because of time) over an infinite space would result in a theoretically absolute zero state with no density whatsoever.

2.The Universe is Expanding- Because the Universe is currently accelerating away from itself; we can reasonably assume that the Universe was smaller and closer together in the past. It could have started from a singularity.

3.Radiation from the Big Bang- The Cosmic Background Radiation was accidentally found in 1965. This light glow is actually radiation and heat from the initial explosion. [8]

4.Great Galaxy Seeds- Scientists believed that if the Big Bang actually occurred, scientists believed that we should se slight variations (or ripples) in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by gravitational attraction into galaxies. In 1989 the search for these ripples was intensified by NASA with the satellite called "COBE". George Smoot announced COBE's findings in 1992 in newspapers saying, "If you're religious, it's like looking at God." University of Chicago astrophysicist Michael Turner stated, "The significance of this [discovery] cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology." The ripples show that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Smoot called them the "machining marks from the creation of the universe" and the "fingerprints of the maker." [2] [5]

5.Einstein's' Theory of General Relativity- The theory absolutely demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter. It shows that time, space, and matters are co-relative. That is, they are interdependent- you can't have one without the others.

6.[5] The Kalam (from the Arabic word for "eternal") Cosmological Argument in Philosophy:
a. An infinite number of days has no end
b.But today is the end day of history (history being a collection of all days).
c.Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today (Time did not have a beginning)
If you try to assert that there is no beginning, then the distinction between any points in time becomes indistinguishable and thus any two points in time with accuracy (general relativity). [5] This philosophical argument is a pre-requisite to any arguments against the 2nd premise.

1.Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
2.The Universe certainly had a beginning.
3.Therefore the Universe certainly has a cause.

JUST FOR FUN (Is not a pre-requisite to winning the debate but you can refute if you like):

Characteristics of the First Cause just from the evidence we've discussed. The First Cause must be:

•Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite from a material perspective;

•Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing;

•Supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision (we can't talk more about the complexity of life, non-life, and the Universe itself.

•Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices)

The statement begs the question that everything had a beginning. It would be a paradox Universe for everything to have a beginning because the very first piece of existence would need a cause as well. The only logical conclusion one can make is that at least one thing in the "Universe" is eternal and therefore did not need a causation. We know for sure that our Universe had a beginning, despite the fact that many think-tanks like Einstein tried to add a fudge factor to his equations. Eventually evidence caught up and the Big Bang axiom is the result.

1)Craig, William Lane (2000). The Kalam Cosmological Argument. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers. ISBN 1-57910-438-X.
2)Craig, William Lane (1996). "Initial Arguments: A Defense of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God". The Craig-Smith Debate: Does God Exist?. Leadership University. Retrieved 28 November 2009.
3)Craig, William Lane (2007). "Causal Premiss [sic] of the Kalam Argument". Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig: Q&A. Reasonable Faith. Retrieved 27 November 2009.
4)Heeren, Show Me God, 168
5)Norman L. Geisler, F.T. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
Debate Round No. 1


Premise 1

Now, my opponent says there is an unbroken Law of Causality with regards to science. This of course, is utterly without foundation. Pro quotes a scientific pioneer Francis Bacon in an attempt to back up this notion. However, Francis Bacon was not alive to study quantum mechanics, and it is well accepted by most modern physicists that many quantum events happen in an indeterministic mannor, acausally (although there many deterministic interpretations, most of them are not adhered to). A vacuum fluctuation for example, is commonly acknowledged as an uncaused and spontaneously emergence of energy that is governed by the uncertainty relation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi). Here are a couple of supporting quotes by modern scientists:

"Quantum events have a way of just happening, without any cause, as when a radioactive atom decays at a random time." - Taner Edis. Department of Physics Truman State University Kirksville [1]

"Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature" - Victor Stenger. American Particle Physicist [2]

Now, Con also quotes David Hume claiming that it would be absurd to claim something could happen without a cause. However, here is another quote from Hume:

"Contiguity in time and place is therefore a requisite circumstance to the operation of all causes"- David Hume [3]

However, according to this, space-time could not have had a cause because all causes are contingent to space-time itself. So, it seems there is some confusion with regards to Hume's position on causality.

Now, my opponent presents a fairly outrageous claim:.

"To deny the Law of Causality is to deny is to deny rationality" - Pro

What is this based on exactly? Science is done all the time involving quantum mechanics, rationally, all while assuming acausal laws. So if my opponent is to present a compelling case, I am afraid quoting scientists and philosophers from many hundreds of years ago is not going to cut it in light of modern science.

Even if we assume this so called Law of Causality is a scientific principle worth taking seriously, does science stretch past the limits of space-time? I would argue it could, however this is not a position which helps the theist much. Therefore, quoting any hypothetical causal principles involving science does absolutely nothing to support the notion of space-time and energy needing a cause itself.

Due to the reasons above, I believe my opponent has not even come close to establishing the first premise. There is absolutely no good reason to accept this premise, and modern science undermines it extensively.

Premise 2

My opponent here, presents the typical support for Premise 2 of the argument. There must have been a finite past philosophically, and The Big Bang demonstrates a finite past scientifically. However, does a finite past automatically equate to a true beginning? I think not. Philosophers such as Atheist Adolf Grunbaum and Theist Richard Swinburne have argued that something only "begins to exist" if there was a time earlier in which it did not exist (which makes sense based on experience). This wouldn't apply to the universe however, because the Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time [4], so there could not have been a time earlier in which the universe did not exist. This would mean, that even though there was a finite past of the universe, this doesn't necessitate that it "began to exist". Also, take this common definition of beginning for example:

The point in time or space at which something starts.

How could energy and space-time itself, have a starting point within space-time? This seems like a strange notion for sure. Also, Stephen Hawking calculated that time can behave like another direction of space, and even though there is a finite past there may not be an actual boundary. This would mean that the universe did not have an actual beginning (which the BVG theorem does not rule out).

The main criticism to this is Hawking's use of "imaginary numbers", however there is no reason to think they are not useful in explaining reality.

"[Imaginary numbers] turn out to be invaluable in many applications of mathematics to engineering, physics, and almost every other science. Moreover, these numbers obey all the rules which you already know for ‘real’ numbers” - John Conway and Richard Guy [6]

So not only are there philosophical notions to not believe a finite past of the universe necessitates a true beginning (Adolf Grunbaum and Richard Swinburne), but scientific reasons as well (Stephen Hawking). This means, that the Second Premise of the argument remains without sufficient support.

Premise 3

Since there are no good reasons to accept either premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, then this conclusion is meaningless.

Additional Aspects

Pro claims that if God doesn't exist, then why is there something rather than nothing? However, this assumes "nothing" is a default state of existence without any justification. Regardless, even though there are no good reasons to think the universe had a cause, I will rebut my opponent's claims here anyway.

"•Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite from a material perspective;" - Pro

My opponent uses the word "he" without warrant. Something can be self-existent, timeless, non-spatial, and immaterial without being linked with any sentience at all (let alone a specific sex). Thus, this does nothing to establish God in the slightest.

"•Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing;" - Pro

Who said the universe came from absolutely nothing? There is certainly no scientific evidence to support this claim. Either way, something being unimaginably powerful does nothing to solidify the existence of a sentient being. A black hole is more powerful than any being I have ever encountered, but surely nobody believes in it sentient. Since extreme power does not equate to sentience, this argument does nothing to establish God either.

"•Supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision (we can't talk more about the complexity of life, non-life, and the Universe itself." - Pro

Just because intelligent beings can create things which are complex with precision, doesn't mean that all things which seem complex and produced with precision were made by an intelligent being, or beings. This would be like saying that because Asians can do calculus, every time calculus is done, it was because of an Asian. Thus, no amount of complexity or apparent "precision" can be used to defend the idea of a God.

"•Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices)" - Pro

A choice is not required for something to cause something else to exist. Tectonic plates moving cause mountains to begin to exist, and chemical processes in clouds cause snowflakes to begin to exist. Choices are not required.


I do not find the "who designed the designer" argument to compelling. Thus, I do not feel compelled to defend it here.


All of my opponent's arguments were extremely weak and not compelling at all. The main premises of this argument have not been established, and I undermined them sufficiently.


[3] David Hume, "An Abstract of A Treatise of Human Nature', in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding (New York: Bobbs-Merril, 1955), pp. 186-7.
[6] The Book of Numbers, pg. 212


The only reinforcement Con gives on the topic is from quantum mechanics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle describes the inability to simultaneously predict the location and speed of subatomic particles (i.e., electrons). The Con's assumptions, based on some scientist's opinions, unjustifiably do not distinguish causality and predictability.

The Con has brought up a beautiful description of quantum mechanics delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi) but does not recognize it as a statistical framework in which the model is not "governed by" but falls into much like Newtonian physics is a less accurate description of Einstein's description of General Relativity.

"Science is done all the time involving quantum mechanics, rationally, all while assuming acausal laws" -CON

This is a highly peculiar statement considering not only do all scientists assume (whether they realize it or not) that their conclusions, statements, and logic has a justifiable CAUSE- but they also go about their research (especially physics) finding causes. I'm not talking about philosophy. The very nature of the equation delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi) gives a description of the change in energy, the change in time, and a constant. When you change the time in the equation, you necessarily change the Energy in the equation (especially when energy is above a certain threshold) In every non-inequality SCIENCE equation this is certainly true. A change in the gravitational constant, necessarily changes (or causes the change) the period of a pendulum, swing, spring, orbit. Etc. I could go on and on. [5]

The most serious objection to acausality is the mere fact that it's conclusion is self-defeating. The Con assumed that his/her memories and past experiences can formulate what he/she calls a logical conclusion. If he/she didn't, then he/she wouldn't be debating a logical debate because past experiences did not cause Con to formulate any logical conclusion. If there is no cause for the Cons proposal, then it can't in any way shape or form be validated-therefore rendering any of Con's conclusions useless.

This is what I mean by, "To deny the Law of Causality is to deny is to deny rationality"- Pro
But even if, for any reason, any voter concludes that there are no causes (that includes reasons) for anyone's conclusions, they MUST therefore render everyone's conclusions unjustified. In that case, the voter should still vote PRO because the Con instigated a logical debate, but rendered logic useless.

I thought it would be self-explanatory because of the argument's self-defeating nature. The mere fact that my opponent stands by non-causality automatically defeats his conclusion. It's as simple as that. For the people who believe in rational thinking and debates, I will continue.

I want to make it absolutely clear that a particle/field (vacuum flux) was found in the mass range that the Higgs Boson is expected to be. The CERN, along with numerous other contributors are now in the process of verifying the particle's properties. The Con cannot get away with any assertions that the Higgs Field has been validated. These assertions are still purely theoretical and cannot in any shape or form evidence of random fluctuation-even if we (somehow) know it was non-causal instead of uncertainly. [11]

The Con has made the assertion that the law of causality and science doesn't necessary apply outside of Space-time. My question to that is, "Why in the world are scientists trying to apply it to the Higgs Boson, and why is Brian Green coming out with the multi-verse theory based on the Higgs Boson if your assertion is true?" This is because he can't say anything without the Law of Causality, logic, science, and naturalistic assumptions without it being a self-defeating conclusion.

(After all, atheist don't have god or bible besides their own fallible works) (-;

Alright, I am going to begin by talking about Con's assertion that the Universe is finite, but doesn't necessitate a beginning. Con said:

1."Philosophers..argued that something only ‘begins to exist' if there was a time earlier in which it did not exist (which makes sense based on experience)."
2."The Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time [4],"
3.Therefore the Universe never begins to exist or had a start and doesn't need a cause.

Pro says:

1.Assumes acausality->I have already debunked extensively. Something cannot start from nothing regardless of time- without causality:ALL LOGIC FAILS IN THIS DEBATE.

2."The Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time" and even gave a Wikipedia reference and all. Except Con's Wikipedia reference reads, "The Planck epoch (or Planck era), named after Max Planck, is the earliest period of time in the HISTORY of the universe." Con accidentally forgot to add the word history to the end of his/her premise. That is a disastrous mistake because history is defined as:

History -the discovery, collection, organization, and presentation of information about past events. [10]

It is in fact the earliest collection of research, and in that research there is nothing that inquires that that it is by necessity the absolute beginning. In fact, the very article he brought up says,

"As there presently exists no widely accepted framework for how to combine quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity, science is not currently able to make predictions about events occurring over intervals shorter than the Planck time or distances shorter than one Planck length, the distance light travels in one Planck time—about 1.616 � 10−35 meters……..Without an understanding of quantum gravity, a theory unifying quantum mechanics and relativistic gravity, the physics of the Planck epoch are unclear, and the exact manner in which the fundamental forces were unified, and how they came to be separate entities, is still poorly understood."

Yet the Con says,
"The Plank Epoch (zero-10-43 seconds) is the earliest period of time [4]"- Con
..even though no one knows. In fact, the primary axiom in secular science does concede that the Universe had an absolute BEGINNING for excellent reasons of course. Hence the fact that there is a time=0.

In fact this article demonstrates the conclusion very well. Secular science has no idea or has very little idea about what happened and "the physics of the Planck epoch are unclear, and the exact manner in which the fundamental forces were unified, and how they came to be separate entities, is still poorly understood."

This is by its very nature the exemplification of the supernatural. You see, all naturalistic assumptions have lead researchers back to the Big Band and Big Beginning, yet when it comes to the very beginning- naturalistic theories break down. I believe this is because of the existence of the supernatural. Now you may ask me to prove, with naturalistic assumptions, the supernatural-but that would be circular reasoning-just as disproving the supernatural with un-supernatural (naturalistic) assumptions is.

Space-time does not have to start within space-time.

This video explains the last argument.

If the Con is trying to say that the speed of light particles could become asymmetric all on their own, I will remind you that the Con has the burden of proof on this. If Con can't, then the particles need a supernatural to get into that state providing my conclusion.

The Con has yet to give a sound argument against either premise and the conclusion is far beyond a reasonable doubt. Standing against the Law of Causality destroys rationality-Con must answer this logically or non-penalty concede it. There still is a beginning; no objections are left standing. I understand that atheism commits the Con to destroy this logic, but that doesn't mean you can-Con certainly hasn't so far.

Debate Round No. 2


Causality and Predictability

My opponent is accusing me of confusing the concepts of causality and predictability. As Pro alludes to, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle describes the inability to predict the location and speed of sub-atomic particles at the same time, it is also true however that this opens the door for the commonly acknowledged notion of acausality in modern physics. The quantum vacuum is known as a necessary condition which needs to be in place for these virtual particle fluctuations to occur, however there is no sufficient cause for any of the fluctuation's beginnings that occur within the vacuum. Without a sufficient cause, there is nothing we can describe as causality taking place (as philosopher Wes Morriston pointed out) [1]. A necessary condition allowing for something to occur, can not be considered a necessary cause rationally unless a sufficient explanation is also present as well. However, these fluctuations occur without any reason for why each one occurs at the time or place that it does, unlike the workings above at the macroscopic level. This validates the notion that things can happen without a provoking trigger (a cause) as long as there is a necessary condition in place which allows for this to occur. Therefore, I'm not confusing acausality with indeterminacy. I'm simply demonstrating that this type of indeterminacy opens the door for acausality and implies it heavily. So my opponent is presenting non-existent problems with my argument.

The main point is that the laws of physics allow for these events to occur without a cause and this is a commonly accepted interpretation. If there was really a law of causality in science worth taking seriously at the sub-atomic level, then this view wouldn't be so adhered to amongst such esteemed physicists, and would have been thrown in the junkyard. Alexander Vilenkin is one of the United State's most respected physicists for example, and his model of comic origins describes the universe emerging from a quantum tunneling event, with a finite size (a = H-1) and with a zero rate of expansion or contraction (da/dt = 0), from a symmetrical state of zero energy, void of space-time [2]. On this, he says:

"As a result of the tunnelling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere ("nucleates") and immediately starts to inflate...If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunnelling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required." - Alexander Vilenkin [3]

Of course, a symmetrical quantum state of zero energy, void of space-time is not the "metaphysical nothingness" discussed by the likes of Aristotle. This is irrelevant however, because there would be only a necessary explanation, and not a sufficient explanation for the cosmic birth in question. Just like there is no "half of a pregnancy", there is no "half of a causal process" either. The cosmic origins being described would be allowed by the laws of physics, this just shouldn't be the case if the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument was true.

The problem for Pro here is that he is appealing to intuition gained at the macroscopic level and trying to apply it to quantum mechanics, which is an extremely counter-intuitive domain. This is not only fallacious reasoning, but it is utterly absurd. [4]

Acausality and Logic/ Rationality

My skepticism with regards to any causal principles is limited to:

(i) The sub-atomic level
(ii) Beyond the hypothetical limits of space-time

Since this is as far as it extends, my opponent's claim that accepting acausality in certain areas is self-defeating, is a blunder of epic proportions. Events at the sub-atomic level simply don't behave like events above it, and any quantum physicist worth taking seriously would agree with me. This means, one can abandon causality in particular areas and still be perfectly logical, because causality does not have to be abandoned with regards to areas where we know it holds. To support the first premise of this argument, one must show that there are sufficient explanations for each virtual particle fluctuation that occurs at the sub-atomic level (in order to establish a proper causal process), and that causation itself stretches past any hypothetical limits of space-time. Without this, it simply would not be rational to accept that everything that begins to exist has a cause. There is no foundation for such a claim, and my opponent bears a heavy burden of proof that has not been met.

Pro also states:

"The Con cannot get away with any assertions that the Higgs Field has been validated. These assertions are still purely theoretical and cannot in any shape or form evidence of random fluctuation-even if we (somehow) know it was non-causal instead of uncertainly." - Pro

One does not need to appeal to the Higgs Field. Quantum fluctuations ae experimentally virified. The Lamb shift [5] and the Casimir-Polder force [6] conclude the existence of virtual particle fluctuations, and no physicist denies this.

The Planck Epoch and a Beginning

To deny the fact that there is a finite past involving time itself as a whole would be to appeal to an infinite regress of time. Thus, I see no reason why my opponent would challenge me on the fact that the earliest period of time as a whole, was the Planck Epoch. It is senseless to do if one is a theist trying to prove the Kalam at least. Anyway, Grunbaum and Swinburne's argument has not been touched, and remains unscathed. We know that things begin to exist, not necessarily because there is a finite past of said thing, but because we can theoretically pin point a time when it didn't exist. I didn't exist in 1985 for example, this is how I know I began to exist. This isn't the case for the universe if there is a finite past time itself which exists as long as the universe does. Also, I failed to see a response to Stephen Hawking's no-boundary proposal, thus it stands.

Now, Pro claimed that scientists admit that the laws of physics break down at a singularity, and that this implies the supernatural. This is mind bogglingly false. Cosmologists and physicists believe that once quantum mechanics gets introduced into the picture, the idea of a singularity most likely becomes obsolete. Singularities are predicted on a strictly Relativity based Big Bang model, neglecting quantum effects. This means, the beginning of the universe could easily be described by the laws of physics (for example, Alexander Vilenkin's model). The key, is quantum mechanics.

"These quantum mechanical models of the beginning of the universe are explanatorily superior in one respect to the standard GTR-based Big Bang models; they do not postulate initial states at which the laws of physics break down but explain the beginning of the universe in accordance with the laws of physics." - Philosopher of Physics, Quentin Smith [7]

We do not have a clear picture without a Grand Unified Theory. However, Quantum Tunnelling in this sense evades singularity theorems.


Pro didn't establish that everything that begins to exist has a cause. He must prove that each virtual particles has a specific, and sufficient explanation to demonstrate a causal process, and that causation itself stretches past the hypothetical limits of space-time to meet such a heavy burden. Pro also dodged Grunbaum and Swinburne's argument, and Stephen Hawking's proposal. Thus, neither premise has been established, and both premises have been undermined to the point of no return.


[2] Alexander Vilenkin: “tunneling from literally nothing”, 1982,1988 paper
[3] Alexander Vilenkin: "Many worlds in one: The search for other universes" (P. 181)

[4] Included Video


Very simply, the Con is unjustifiably separating the quantum vacuum condition from a cause, but misses the fact that the quantum fluctuation is inherently a probabilistic framework much like flipping a coin. With enough variables known, one could precisely calculate what side the coin is going to land (no one denies this); precisely as with quantum fluctuation- if there is enough known (sufficient cause), then one could determine the outcome of a fluctuation; however, because we don't have all of the constants-INTUITIVELY, the bandwagon will see the mathematical canopy (probabilistic framework) surrounding the truth and unjustifiably interpret it as reality, but that would lead us into many problems.

The quantum world is the fundamental building blocks by which the macro is built on. If there is NO causation in the micro, then you have NO causation in the macro. If there are UNDETERMINED causes in the micro, then the macro has AVERAGE causation-THIS IS WHAT WE CAN OBSERVE IN THE MACRO. You can't take an average of no causations and get a cause. A field is an UNDETERMINED probabilistic framework, not a smear of reality or certainly not a vacuum of reality and causes. You don't need to know exactly the cause of the coin landing to know it had a cause.

The Bandwagon fallacy is then used by the CON to support the interpretation that this mathematical framework is the intuitively correct interpretation. In order for this claim to be true, the CON must successfully defeat the following paragraphs (This is a requisite to latter arguments as well):

1)The Con INTUITIVELY wants to separate laws that govern the macro and micro because they no doubt behave much differently. However, to do this, the CON MUST give a justifiable reason for the CON'S distinction. What is inherently different about the macro and micro? DO NOT LET THE CON GET AWAY WITHOUT ANSWERING THIS QUESTION. DO NOT let him use quantum mechanics or general relativity or anything that depends on them (particles) for THOES ARE DETERMINED WITHIN THE INHERENCY OF ITS SIZE. Micro/Macro is not determined by the laws of nature. This answer is what the Grand Unified Theory strives for. IF CON CANNOT ANSWER THIS, then THERE IS A SUPERNATURAL VOID BETWEEN THESE VERY SEPARATE REALMS PROVIDING THE PRO'S CONCLUSION-the only model left standing.

2)IF CON CANNOT ANSWER THIS AND STILL REJECTS THE SUPERNATURAL, then the NATURAL law of a/causation applies simultaneously to both realms meaning Con must either drop acausation or acausation links to my earlier argument about rational thinking. If the Con contends that there are simply NO causations for quantum fluxes (as supposed to the much more reasonable UNDETERMINED causes of fluctuations), then there is NO average causation for the CON to make a conclusions as to render the CON's conclusion void of any logic or support whatsoever. Do not let CON get away without answering this. (-:

Regardless, if CON can't provide a justified natural gap (Grand Unified Theory) and STILL denies the supernatural and wants to concede a rational thinking debate, then the only alternative is for causality to apply in both realms. As provided, without causality-no one can conclude anything because there are no causes to provide the conclusion (as CON conceded to last round).


My opponent is refusing to apply everything we know about causality outside of the space-time boundary. The CON has already eluded that quantum fluctuation happens outside of the space-time boundary and cannot change that on the conclusion at this point, so causality must apply as well (See previous arguments the Con must dispute first).
Therefore, Causality stands outside of the space-time boundary just as some unverifiable amount of quantum fluctuation does.

The Con missed the rebuttal to the Grunbaum and Swinburne's premise. Again, this assumes acausality- I have already rebutted acausality outside of the space-time boundary extensively. Do not let the CON get away with not addressing this assumption to this premise again.[5]

Vilenkin 1982 tunneling model or the Hartle and Hawking 1983 no boundary proposal, "does have a beginning" [12], and therefore requires transcendent activation if it is to be anything more than an inert mathematical description, but even if it didn't the Con must explain the non-uniformity and the sudden acceleration of that very model.

As of the time of writing the book, Dr. Hawking was careful to say, "I'd like to emphasize that this idea that time and space should be finite 'without boundary' is just a proposal. It cannot be deduced from some other principal." (Hawking, p. 175). Dr. Hawkins also goes on to mention," A space-time in which events have imaginary values of the time coordinate is said to be Euclidean, after the ancient Greek Euclid, who founded the study of the geometry of two-dimensional surfaces. What we now call Euclidean space-time is very similar except that it has four dimensions instead of two. In Euclidean space-time there is no difference between the time direction and directions in space." Dr. Robert J. Spitzer goes on to say, "The Harle-Hawking proposal also involves a variety of unwarranted assumption, not least of which is retaining in the model's solution the computational expient of a Euclidean rather than Lorentzian space-time metric for the precise purpose of avoiding an initial singularity." [12] The no-boundary proposal fails for the mere fact that it does not accurately portray the geometry of the Universe. Time is certainly different than the other three.

"Singularities are predicted on a strictly Relativity based Big Bang model, neglecting quantum effects."- CON
"This is mind-bogglingly false"-CON ;-)

The Con missed the argument made in the video involving "The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Boundary to Past Time Theorems",2003 has gone undisputed since. It is basically the description that ANY ANY ANY UNIVERSE WITH AN AVERAGE HUBBLE EXPANSION GREATER THAN ZERO will eventually reach a point where they hit constant velocities due to the cosmological speed limit. Reversing the time thus causes a point in time in which you can't get any faster than the speed of light necessitating a singularity and thus a point where space does not exist-t=0- a point in time where space did not exist.

There is a boundary so there is a necessity for a supernaturalistic quality during this boundary time. DO NOT LET THE CON GET AWAY WITHOUT THOUGHOULY AND LOGICALLY ADRESSING THIS PROOF.


Not only do both premises & conclu. stand there are roughly 20 Cosmological Constants that must be so precisely met for any type of life on earth to sustain, let alone pop into existence.

1.Plank Length
2.Plank Time
3.Plank Energy
4.Max Speed of Light
5.Gravitation attraction constant
6.Weak force coupling constant
7.Strong nuclear force coupling constant
8.Rest mass of proton
9.Rest mass of an electron
10.The electron or proton unit charge
11.Min mass in our universe
12.Total rest mass in Universe
13.Boltzmann constant
14.Hubble constant
15.Cosmological constant
16.Cosmic photon/proton ratio
17.Permittivity of free space
18.Electromagnetic fine-structure constant
19.Weak fine-structure constant
20.Gravitational fine-structure constant

Roger Penrose, Owen Gingerrich, Fred Hoyle, Walter Bradley, Brandon Carter, Paul Davies, and others have assembled an immense amount of data to show the very narrow, closed range of values required for our universe's energetic, individuating, large-scale, and fine-structure constants allowing for anthropic conditions. The odds of our anthropic universe arising amidst the total phase-space volume of possible universes for a creation event is 1 in 10^10^125!

This is my last, as agreed. I thank my opponent for such a thought provoking debate.

12) Dr. Robert J. Spitzer, 2010; New Proofs for the Existence of God
Debate Round No. 3


Premise 1

Acausality and Quantum Fluctuations

Pro simply does not understand that a necessary condition is not a necessary cause, unless there is a sufficient cause. He has also failed miserably to establish sufficient causes of quantum fluctuations, and simply makes baseless assertions with regards to equating the quantum vacuum with a cause. The vacuum serves as a necessary condition for these virtual particle fluctuations to occur uncaused, but there is no specific and sufficient cause for why each fluctuation happens when, and where it does. This means, virtual particle fluctuations are most likely governed by acausal laws, even if we do not know for sure.

Take this equation for example:

delta-E • delta-t >= h/(4*pi)

If if delta-t is at a tiny enough size, then delta-E can get so extremely huge that it becomes impossible to tell energy conservation has taken a hit or not. This means, it becomes impossible to know if the energy comes from nothing. It is Pro's burden to show that everything that begins to exist has a cause beyond a reasonable doubt.


Delta-t is congruent to (h/(4*pi)*delta-E

A specific amount of energy (delta-E) can spontaneously pop into existence and then disappear [1]. There is evidence that this uncaused emergence of energy happens all the time (as I already provided in the last round). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the first premise of the KCA should not be accepted. Even if these events are not uncaused for sure, Pro has not demonstrated which action occurs each time a fluctuation happens to cause it, or why it must be caused in the first place. The burden is on him to prove causality applies to all of reality, this has not been done.

Pro states as well that things at smaller scales effects things at larger scales, so if things at smaller scales are acausal, the macroscopic world would be the same. This is laughably outrageous logic, and fallacious to the furthest extent. Fluctuations at the sub-atomic level may very well indeed be uncaused themselves, but still be the cause of things that happen at larger scales. It seems my opponent is all over the place here, and is having a hard time constructing a very coherent argument.

A fallacy my opponent is committing in this debate is switching the burden of proof. Basically, I must show how quantum fluctuations are uncaused, if not, then everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, I only said acausality is theoretically plausible in quantum mechanics, and is adhered to by many physicists. It is his burden to show that everything that begins to exist must have a cause, not mine to show that acausality has to exist. Regardless, Pro wants to know what makes the sub-atomic level so much different than the macroscopic level. Well, the fact that Relativity holds only on average (if at all) at the sub-atomic level, and it always applies at the macroscopic level is one good reason. There are times when we cannot tell for sure whether or not the Conservation of Energy is being violated or not at these scales. This is not the case at the macroscopic level.

My opponent is also saying that if I cannot provide a Grand Unified Theory and still deny the supernatural, then I am being irrational and Premise 1 is true. I am almost certain that even the theists on this site reading this cringed at that line of reasoning. The truth is, to establish Premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, one must show that an acausal quantum tunnelling origin does not evade singularity theorems where the laws of physics break down, or is extremely unlikely. In fact, one must show that nothing happens acausaly to establish the first premise. Has this been accomplished? Not by a long shot.

Causality and the Hypothetical Limits of Space-Time

I claimed that this acausal quantum origin is theoretically possible, I never claimed this is what happened for sure, or that these laws must stretch past any limits of space-time. My opponent however, has the burden of showing that causality does stretch past the limits of space-time (not just claim it is merely epistemically possible). Pro failed to provide even a probabilistic argument for this notion, and gave no a priori support.

Causation is only something we can say for sure exists within space-time and above the sub-atomic level based on experience. This cannot be used to support a premise which involves causation and everything rationally. Also, something can begin to exist, from something, and still not have a cause for this transition from something 1 to something 2. Thus, ex nihilo nihil fit is no a priori support for Premise 1. Ex nihilo nihil fit could be completely true, and Premise 1 could be completely false simultaneously.

Premise 2

Milesofchange states that by refuting acausality, this refutes the argument from Grunbaum and Swinburne. However, their argument is about what constitutes a proper beginning of an existence, and does not refer to causality. Since Pro has still failed to refute this argument properly, and did not sufficiently refute the definition of "beginning", they stand. Thus, the second premise has been refuted in the context of this debate due to this alone.

Pro also says that Alexander Vilenkin's model, and Stephen Hawking's model both constitute some type of beginning. This is more true for Vilenkin's model which implies a space-time boundary, but Hawking's model proposes no boundary of space-time. Either way, Vilenkin's model works without a cause, and needs nothing "transcendent" for it to work (this assertion was just simply assumed by Pro with no justification). The objection to Hawking's model is that it is based on faulty geometry. However, Hawking simply calculated that it is possible for time to behave like another direction of space, he did not say this was for sure the case. Also, Robert J. Spitzer's expertise is not related to physics [2], so quoting him on this matter was a fallacious appeal to authority. Pro's objection here holds little weight in reality.

As far as the BVG theorem is concerned, Pro claims this theorem remains undisputed, and that there must be a singularity. This is ridiculously false. Here are two problems:

(i) Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton disputed the BVG theorem, in a more sophisticated paper than the BVG paper, called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal".

"Aguirre and Gratton have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = - ∞ hypersurface, so the universe expands in both halves of the full de Sitter space." - Borde-Vilenkin-Guth [3]

(ii) Quantum tunnelling would evade the BVG theorem's prediction of a singularity where the laws of physics break down, by describing the past boundary of the inflating region.

"Some new physics would be needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. One possibility, would be some kind of quantum creation event." - Borde-Vilenkin-Guth [3]

(The last part of Pro's argument had to do with fine-tuning, and not the Kalam Cosmological Argument.)


P1: Pro failed do demonstrate that any causal principle must apply to all of reality. I sourced plenty of esteemed physicists who adhere to spontaneous uncaused quantum beginnings. There are no good reasons to believe that intuitive macroscopic principles necessarily hold true at sub-atomic scales.

P2: My opponent did not sufficiently refute the Grunbaum/ Swinburne argument and left the definition I provided for "beginning", untouched. This alone refutes this premise. Pro quoted a non-physicist to rebut Hawking, and the BVG theorem can be evaded easily.

The conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has not been established, and I met my burden in undermining is severely.


[3] Video Source (14:30)


No argument will be posted here, as agreed.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Damn I noticed a few typos on my behalf...Oh well. Good debate!
Posted by westernmarch 4 years ago
Can you train me Rational?
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
I'm tired of rematches on the same subject to be honest, I finished rematch with KeytarHero not too long ago. However, I won't back down if you issue the challenge.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Actually, I take that back. Accepting this debate would give me only one round to respond to relevant objections, and giving you three rounds to offer rebuttals. I wouldn't mind challenging you to the same debate, where we are both given only two rounds to respond to relevant objections.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
That is, do you want to do this debate again? Since we've already had a KCA debate. I'm sure another one would be, shall we say, "furthered", since we have clearly both learned much more about the KCA in debunking and defending it.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
Rational, you want a round 2?
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
I've taken logic 101 and read a few books on logic - but it's been a while, so I could very well be wrong. What you are saying doesn't seem to make sense to me. It's early, I'm rusty, and maybe I'm just not interpreting you properly. I'm trying to though, so let's start with that. :-)

To recap: A deductive argument that is sound, is one where the premises are true and the conclusion is certain.

Yes, the premises in a deductive argument are not necessarily true - the form could be valid, the premises false, and the argument would be unsound. In fact, most discussion over deductive arguments are about the premises.

As to this: "Basically, in a deductive argument, the premises must be more plausible than their opposite."

I do not think this is true. However, I think you might be saying something like this: You believe the KCA premises are true, therefore the conclusion is certain. That being said, you might acknowledge that you could be wrong about the premises. That does not make the argument probabilistic though - what it does is make the premises subject to probability.

I'm not sure if I'm articulating the difference well enough, but basically you could say that there is a 50% probability that the universe came into existence. You could back this up with all sorts of reasoning. Now, when you argue the KCA you are not saying:

Everything that begins has a cause
There is a 50% chance that the universe began
Therefore the universe has X chance at having a cause

(This would be a probabilistic argument)

Instead what happens it that you present a deductive argument:

Everything that begins has a cause
The universe began
Therefore the universe has a cause

You and your opponent haggle over premise two.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
Let me see if I can put it another way, because the way I worded it might not completely represent it. Basically, in a deductive argument, the premises must be more plausible than their opposite.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
No, that's logic 101. The premise of a deductive argument does not have to be true, just more likely true than false. Plus, a deductive argument can be valid (i.e. the conclusion follows from its premises) even if it's not sound (i.e. one or all of the premises are false).
Posted by Meatros 4 years ago
Where are you getting this from? Deductive arguments that are sound are not probabilistic. It sounds like you are saying 2 different things. Again, I'm talking about sound deductive to science, it has not proved that (unless you are speaking from an abductive standpoint wrt "prove"). Also science doesn't actually invalidate an eternal universe (only, perhaps a "presentist" version of eternal).
No votes have been placed for this debate.